Hypergamy, Sluts And Smart Women

A reader emailed a recent fascinating study that, AS PER USUAL♥♥♥♥♥♥♥, confirms many core Chateau concepts and related game strategies.

Although robust sex differences are abundant in men and women’s mating psychology, there is a considerable degree of overlap between the two as well. In an effort to understand where and when this overlap exists, the current study provides an exploration of within-sex variation in women’s mate preferences. We hypothesized that women’s intelligence, given an environment where women can use that intelligence to attain educational and career opportunities, would be: (1) positively related to their willingness to engage in short-term sexual relationships, (2) negatively related to their desire for qualities in a partner that indicated wealth and status, and (3) negatively related to their endorsement of traditional gender roles in romantic relationships. These predictions were supported. Results suggest that intelligence may be one important individual difference influencing women’s mate preferences.

Anti-game haters and various sore losers in life: reread the above for comprehension before commenting. You’ll save everyone a lot of scrolling effort to glide by your blockheadedness.

Let’s tackle the conclusions of this study one by one.

1. Smart, educated, careerist women (aka urban SWPLs) are more likely to want to ride the cock carousel (i.e., “engage in short-term sexual relationships”). That old game hater saw that only low self-esteem sluts and dumb skanks like to play the phallus field is the complete opposite of reality. It’s the smart, educated chicks who dig the cock and, by deduction, it’s the smart, educated chicks who will fall for short-term pickup game more than dumb chicks.

In one fell swoop, a cherished feminist and beta male shibboleth gets crushed into dust and blown away.

2. Smart, educated, careerist women are less interested in a man’s money or career status. This dovetails perfectly with the Chateau contention that female economic empowerment has led to a sexual market where soft polygamy — the clustering of financially independent women at the peak of their fertility (and beauty) around charming alpha males — is the new norm in blue state meccas. If money and occupational status mean less to smart girls, then guess what means more to them? You got it. Game. And who loses in this arrangement? Yup, boring provider beta males.

3. Smart, educated, careerist women are more likely to eschew “traditional gender roles” in romantic relationships. So it is the smart girls, not the dumb ones, who say screw it to marriage, dating, fidelity and lifelong monogamy while they are in their primes, and who are more open to fucking around, casual hook ups, cheating and, ahem, serial monogamy. This is, not to put too fine a point on it, a description of a pickup artist’s paradise. Smart girls do eventually get married at higher rates than dumb, lower class girls, but the relevant factor to the typical urban beta male is how many girls in his milieu are ready for marriage and/or long term relationships *during their 20s*, when women are at their most desirable. If the rising age of first marriage is any indication, not many.

Bottom line: your typical slut is a smart, educated woman.

So what does this have to do with that noted force of nature, female hypergamy? Well, if we premise our argument with the claim that female hypergamy always exists, and is always operational and acting upon women’s mate choice mechanisms (a claim entirely consistent with observed female behavior), then, given the study conclusions above, we are presented with the possibility that smart, financially independent chicks emphasize different male attractiveness traits when choosing mates than do dumb, financially insecure chicks. What are they?

Most of these male attractiveness traits favored by smart chicks, yes, even including social status, can be grouped under the game umbrella. Game makes men more charming, witty, confident, socially savvy and charismatic. It even boosts a man’s social status. (Being known as a ladykiller is chicknip.)

Looks are the one thing game can’t change, but in most men’s experiences, women’s judgment and emphasis of male looks doesn’t much vary between the lower and upper class women, or the dumb and smart women. The study does suggest, though, that economically empowered and übereducated women probably will put more emphasis on male looks than will economically insecure, less educated women.

Now you know why poor, dumb religious girls swoon (settle?) at younger ages for provider betas relatively more than well-off, smart, secular girls. And why the latter can be found hanging off the arm of your local indie band singer before doing the smart thing and marrying a beta as her expiration date looms.

The trends in female mate choice I have described in this post go a longer way than any economic or class argument I’ve read to explain the coming apart of the white race in America as detailed in Charles Murray’s new book. Anyone who wants to take a long, hard look at social trends and the phenomena of “men dropping out” needs to incorporate into his thinking the cold, merciless, unrelenting reality of female hypergamy. To do less would be… uncivilized.

Women complain about how unfair it is that men are called studs when they sleep around, yet women get called sluts for the exact same behavior. It’s actually not a double standard though, because both scenarios are pretty different in terms of circumstances and consequences. I can think of at least four crucial differences:

First, sleeping around is easier for women. Regardless of how you feel about promiscuity, we can all agree that a guy who manages to rack up a lot of sexual partners has to have some skills. It’s challenging for men to rack up partners, even for men with low standards. A man needs social intelligence, interpersonal skills, persistence, thick skin, and plain old dumb luck. For women, though, a vagina and a pulse is often enough. Whenever an accomplishment requires absolutely no challenge, no one respects it. It’s just viewed as a lack of self-discipline. People respect those who accomplish challenging feats, while they consider those who overindulge in easily obtained feats as weak, untrustworthy or flawed.

Second, women have potential to do more harm by sleeping around than men do. Say a man sleeps around with a bunch of different women. He’s definitely doing harm to these women if he pretends to be monogamous while sleeping around. He may cause them emotional pain by his promiscuity. He may cause unwanted pregnancy. He may spread VD. When women sleep around, however, they can cause not only all these same ill effects but one additional crucial ill effect: the risk of unknown parentage.

If one guy sleeps around with five women, each of whom is monogamous to him, and they all get pregnant, it’s a safe bet as to who the father is. If you reverse genders and have one woman who sleeps around with five men who are monogamous to her, and she gets pregnant, the father could be any of the five men. And if one of those men is tricked into raising a baby that isn’t his, he’s investing time, money, estate and property to provide for a child that isn’t carrying his DNA into the next generations, a costly mistake from an evolutionary standpoint.

Our two basic primal drives are to survive and to reproduce, and promiscuous women traditionally make it hard for a man to know for sure whether he is truly reproducing or is secretly raising another man’s child. Men stand a lot more to lose from promiscuous women than the other way around. And it’s no picnic for the child to not know who his real father is either. And it’s a mess for the women carrying on the deception as well. Or just look at any random episode of the Maury show if you don’t believe me.

Since the DNA test and the birth control pill didn’t exist until recently, there were no reliable ways to prevent pregnancy or prove parentage for most of human history. For this reason society developed a vested interest in preventing promiscuity among women, and society accomplished this by creating the slut stigma. And even though the creation of birth control and DNA tests have made this less of a risk than the past, longstanding traditions and customs are not easy for society to break so the slut stigma remains.

Third, men have evolutionary reasons to be programmed to sleep around more. A lot of women roll their eyes when they hear that men are “hard-wired” to sleep around. But from an evolutionary standpoint, it makes total sense. If the two primal drives of humans are to survive and to reproduce, nothing leads to maximum reproduction like one man sleeping with multiple women. If one women sleeps with many men in a nine month period, she can only get pregnant just once. Nine months of rampant promiscuity would give the same result as nine months of highly sexed monogamy: one pregnancy. Now if one man sleeps with many women during a nine month period, you can get many pregnancies during that period. The more women he sleeps with, the more possible pregnancies.

So from an evolutionary standpoint, there are concrete advantages to men being promiscuous compared to women being promiscuous. This doesn’t mean that women have evolved to be strictly monogamous. Women have evolved to be somewhat promiscuous too, something men badly underestimate. However they haven’t evolved to be as rampantly promiscuous as men.
Fourth, promiscuity poses more risk to women than to men. A woman has more to lose from choosing bad sex partners than a man does. She’s the one who gets stuck with going through a pregnancy and taking care of a baby alone if she chooses a deadbeat. For this reason, promiscuous women throughout history have historically been viewed as being a vastly more irresponsible risk takers than promiscuous men, who rightly or wrongly could always run away from the consequences of unwanted pregnancies easier than women could.

These four reasons explain why the longstanding tradition came about of men being rewarded for multiple partners while women get socially punished for similar promiscuity. Of course all this is gradually changing, but we’re up against millenia of evolutionary and cultural conditioning here, so don’t expect any dramatic overnight reversals.

Understand that I’m just explaining why the double standard came into existence and not condoning or condemning it. This is not an attempt to pass judgment or be self-righteous in any way. It’s just an explanation of why the two conditions are treated differently.

The trends in female mate choice I have described in this post go a longer way than any economic or class argument I’ve read to explain the coming apart of the white race in America as detailed in Charles Murray’s new book. Anyone who wants to take a long, hard look at social trends and the phenomena of “men dropping out” needs to incorporate into his thinking the cold, merciless, unrelenting reality of female hypergamy. To do less would be… uncivilized.

what great books for men or passages have tuaght u how to handles/treat woemnz? What are your favorite passages form d a GREAT BOOKz ddat teach u about da true nature of women that the ancient thinkrs noted just like heartsiste does 2day.

please share da GREAT BOOKS FOR GAME passages and titles/authors zlozlzllzlzlz

St. Jerome on women dressing slutty when they want sex from alphas [yes, even in ancient times; there’s nothing new under the sun]:

“The way you dress is an index of your secret desires. Your bodice is purposely ripped apart to show what is beneath…. Sometimes you let your shawl drop so as to lay bare your white shoulders”.

St. Jerome on how a woman’s reputation can go down the toilet quickly through slutty behavior:

“A woman’s reputation is a tender plant; it is like a fair flower which withers at the slightest blast and fades away at the first breath of wind. Especially is this so when she is of an age to fall into temptation….
When once wool has been dyed purple who can restore it to its previous whiteness? An unused jar long retains the taste and smell of that with which it is first filled”.

Saint Jerome on why a man is taking a huge risk by marrying a woman [again, nothing new under the sun]:

Against Jovinianus, Book 1, §28:
“No one can know better than Solomon who suffered through women, what a wife or woman is. Well then, he says in the Proverbs: . . .”Like a worm in wood, so a wicked woman destroyeth her husband.” But if you assert that this was spoken of bad wives, I shall briefly answer: What necessity rests upon me to run the risk of the wife I marry proving good or bad? “It is better,” he says, “to dwell in a desert land, than with a contentious and passionate woman in a wide house.” How seldom we find a wife without these faults, he knows who is married. Hence that sublime orator, Varius Geminus says well “The man who does not quarrel is a bachelor.” “It is better to dwell in the corner of the housetop, than with a contentious woman in a house in common.” . . . . “A continual dropping on a wintry day” turns a man out of doors, and so will a contentious woman drive a man from his own house. She floods his house with her constant nagging and daily chatter, and ousts him from his own home. …It is not the harlot, or the adulteress who is spoken of; but woman’s love in general is accused of ever being insatiable; put it out, it bursts into flame; give it plenty, it is again in need; it enervates a man’s mind, and engrosses all thought except for the passion which it feeds. …See how a wife is classed with the greatest evils. But if you reply that it is an odious wife, I will give you the same answer as before-the mere possibility of such danger is in itself no light matter. For he who marries a wife is uncertain whether he is marrying an odious woman or one worthy of his love. If she be odious, she is intolerable. If worthy of love, her love is compared to the grave, to the parched earth, and to fire.

OK, maybe. And note that in the end, marriage rates are still high
in the middle class, remaining above 80% for the 30-50 y.o. crowd,
(men and women, including women who “married up” i suppose).

In the working class, marriage rates have plunged to about half of
that. All according to Murray, but he did a LOT of research.

And the middle-class women, when they do marry, do not necessarly
marry betas – but at that point their FIRST criterion is to marry
a middle class man, or higher if she can manage it.

In an earlier thread I wrote about working-class men with high
incomes (plummers, NC-machine operators etc). They can likely
scarf up a prettier woman then the middle class guy, because
the system works in reverse to some extent – middle class guys
tend to stay away from working class women. The are more tolerant
than the women, but a lot of selection is built in to where you
are and whom you meet.

Its common for lower class women to date up, but my failed marriage was exactly that situation (attractive working class girl), and to some extent I have seen some resistance from working class girls towards white collar guys. Their preference for men in their own socio-econ class is expressed by many proxies: affinity for country music, demeaning comments about men who don’t drive trucks or who don’t hunt, smoking habit, seeming disinterest in academic success and preference towards trade education/community college…a number of cultural identifiers that reflect the social groups they feel comfortable belonging to.

I hear you, Sidewinder. I used to “date down” and got tired of hearing about the guys these women knew who were just above being functionally retarded. If you read a book they considered you “queer.”

One thing I’ve noticed is that in the past decade these types of women went from dating redneck types to Hispanics. To very loosely paraphrase F. Scott Fitzgerald, there’s always a new basement for lowlife American woman to fall into.

Correct. I live in Redneckville, and I can assure you that ‘working class’ girls do not want preppies. They’ve been taught that anyone who speaks coherently, wears nice clothes, drives a car–particularly if it’s a foreign model–is a faggot. Redneck girls like thugs and ersatz thugs. There aren’t many cute ones, but the cute ones I do see are with the type of guy who is still a wigger and walks around Walmart wearing his cap sideways. They are basically becoming white Ni@@ers, which is why their marriage rates are dropping. In fact, a preppy would have much better luck with a real ghetto chick.

All of this was different 50 or 60 years ago. A well dressed, well educated man would cause the rural girls to put there best dresses on in an attempt to catch him and improve themselves. But no more. Trust me. I’m pulling rank on all of you big city guys. You’re all probably right about ‘Lawyer Chicks’ and all of that, but ‘poor religious girls’ aren’t going to jump all over you when you drive up to Walmart in your 5 series and expensive clothes.

The white lower class is now so stupid that it doesn’t even see a reason to improve itself. To them, it’s ‘all good’.

There is a twist to that. In insecure times (like now) women (and men, in some ways) are attracted to strength, meaning if not thugs at least men who have such attributes that they could be thugs if they wanted to.

You see this in both men and women. In normal times, people try to emulate the socio-economic layer above them (or, sometimes, several layers above), but in shaky times they emulate, especially in dress, the layers below them. Thus baggy hip-hop clothing, reversed baseball caps (it doesn’t cost any more to wear them the way they were originally intended). This is NOT the same as hippies with torn jeans, the hippies wanted to make a statement that they had opted out of the middle class (that most of them grew up in),
the new wanna-be-thugs want to show that they have the strength and attitude to knock your block off.

Smart women also have more choices in the dating market and thus more opportunities to slut it up. If you look at the demographic clustering of smart, educated SWPL types in blue state urban meccas, the combination of population density and relative anonymity allows women in large cities to take home a different cock every weekend without negative social repercussions. An uneducated religious girl in a small town could only get so far with her sluttery before she a) ran out of men, and b) brought lasting damage to her public reputation. Also keep in mind that many urban SWPL women are transplants from smaller, more socially repressed communities, so it’s a self-selecting population.

My advice to all these women is the same: Marry a provider beta with enough alpha qualities to be admirable. Take good care of his children. Stay attractive and treat him kindly. Don’t cheat.

The problem with this hypothesis is that Murray’s book tells us that it’s the lower class, less educated women who are marrying less. Marriage rates for college educated women have been stable.

[heartiste: i don’t want to have to keep saying this, so i’ll just say it this once. any further comments along these lines will be deleted as trolling. marriage rates may be somewhat stabler among the upper middle class, but *age of first marriage* is increasing among them. that is significant. it means smart chicks are slutting it up for more years than dumb chicks.]

If the delay in marriage/not getting married at all is an indicator for hypergamy, then hypergamy is higher among the poor, who are not the urban SWPL sluts you’re talking about.

Suvari says, “It’s taken years to get to know myself. I had never really taken time to cultivate who I was,” Suvari tells Boston Common. “I’ve felt drained by it. But I feel like I’m really, finally, content at this point in my life. I’m accepting of who I am and how diverse I am and honoring that. All of it.”

Without exception, EVERY divorced chick friend of mine says something along these lines. EVERY DAMN ONE. They’ve “finally gotten to know themselves.” They “finally have the chance to focus on themselves.” I have one friend in particular whom I’ve known for years– when we were in our teens she’d always get real touchy-feely-sentimentaly whenever we’d get drunk together, and she’d say, “You know what? I *like* me… I really *like* me.” We’re adults now, and since our teens she’s been married and divorced twice. And wouldn’t you know it, not THREE WEEKS AGO she says to me, “You know what? I *like* me… I really *like* me.”

The comment was not too refined, but the host’s clarification was helpful in understanding the blog’s initial post. So there was some eventual benefit to the exchange. So long as the host is willing to deal with the freshman’s questions, the answers are worth the annoyance.

Expanding on Heartiste’s reply: age of first marriage affects family size. A childless woman who marries at 40 just for social reasons, and stays childless, is just as bad as a woman who never marries, from an evolutionary perspective. She flunks the Darwin test, and contributes nothing to the next generation.

In centuries past, there was an incentive for affluent families to have many children, because children could help with the family farm or business. With the trend towards working for someone else for a salary, and the high cost of raising a child to middle-class standards (college, etc), the economic disincentives point to an eventual collapse of Western society due to dysgenic factors.

This shouldn’t surprise anyone. We have created a paradigm in which SWPL women in their 20’s are completely unconstrained, and are free to follow their most primal, base desires in a diverse and dense urban setting. With their education, money and access to birth control, they’re not likely to drop out of the race due to an 18 year reproductive commitment.

What IS surprising is that women are shocked by the male response. Women have used money and leverage (ill gotten or otherwise) as their ticket to the most vag-tingly mate. Men are using game to do the same.

I think you will see the number of beta males drop, slowly, as we move into this uncomfortable new world. Men will have fewer job opportunities, have come from more bitter, parsimonious families, and will have been exposed to the duplicity of the gender wars at an earlier age. They will become accordingly less respectful of women, and as they succeed, they will be immitated (they ARE being immitated). There is no way to sustain a frustrated yet magically docile population of sexually unsatisfied men forever. We are adapting, and will continue to adapt, until the face of the American male is as alien to us as modern women are.

Women are creating their own demise having bastard spawn with alphas who never fell for the feminist bullshit. Their sons will grow up to be just like their fathers and all that will be left for women is dark triad alphas and reformed betas looking to pump and dump. 50 years later the women will ask where have all the good men gone? You bred them out of existence you stupid cunts.

Maybe not BRED them out, but certainly discouraged beta behaviors. I think most of thosw who laymen think are “true alphas” are just men who grew up in an environment which encouraged alpha behavior. It’s in the genes only as much as confidence is.

Perhaps when our economy is in shambles and most men are cut-throat alphas or callous, unapolegetic former betas, the SMV of a provider beta will return. Maybe it’s cyclical.

In the meantime, we have the comment sections of CH posts to prepare us for the gender thermonuclear winter ahead.

Perhaps when our economy is in shambles and most men are cut-throat alphas or callous, unapolegetic former betas, the SMV of a provider beta will return. Maybe it’s cyclical.

Isaiah 3 NIV 1984

16 The Lord says,

“The women of Zion are haughty,

walking along with outstretched necks,

flirting with their eyes,

tripping along with mincing steps,

with ornaments jingling on their ankles.

17 Therefore the Lord will bring sores on the heads of the women of Zion;

the Lord will make their scalps bald.”

18 In that day the Lord will snatch away their finery: the bangles and headbands and crescent necklaces, 19 the earrings and bracelets and veils, 20 the headdresses and ankle chains and sashes, the perfume bottles and charms, 21 the signet rings and nose rings, 22 the fine robes and the capes and cloaks, the purses 23 and mirrors, and the linen garments and tiaras and shawls.

“I think you will see the number of beta males drop, slowly, as we move into this uncomfortable new world.”

I agree with your above paragraphs but have to disagree with the quoted statement.

I’ve said this before, and stand by it: Regardless of how much GAME information/knowledge/whatever becomes more available it won’t have a significant effect on the alpha male vs. beta male ratio. There will always be very few alphas, a shit ton of betas, and an increasing number of omegas.

Very, very few men have the intelligence, persistence and commitment that it takes to APPLY game and make fundamental changes in thinking and behaving to increase the quality and frequency of pussy in their own lives.

Many talk, scarcely few walk.

Look at the game/seduction/dating market today: You have a fairly small group of men that have created products and services. Of these men, *most* blazed their own trail by simply going out and forcing themselves to cold approach women and learn through trial and error. It’s this same quality that is rare, and that is Alpha.

Game knowledge only helps to catalyse the development of those very few who possess the underlying skills to free themselves of socio-political programmed beta tardness.

The rest either deny it or just talk about it.

Example: why is McDonalds still growing and profitable even though the knowledge that it’s products aren’t really even food and it’s absolute horrible shit for your body? Exactly.

Thanks for your thoughtful response. But I disagree. Of course there will always be omegas, betas and alphas, but the core issue is the ratio of those groups. Male culture is playing catchup with the damage being done to it by economics and the media, thus there are more people being raised as betas, floundering in the sexual marketplace. I am proposing that economic and social forces are going to change this ratio.

I think we’ll see more and more men appear who, though beta in core personality, will at least know the basics of not alienating/disgusting a woman at first blush. Anything is better than the current state, where we are raised to believe it’s Leave it to Beaver, when instead it’s the beaver damming us…

“I am proposing that economic and social forces are going to change this ratio.”
This is where our disagreement is. My point is that econ/social forces are irrelevant given my above claim. Regardless of particular socio-economics on an individual, the qualities I mention above will still trend in the same ratio in the aggregate.

“I think we’ll see more and more men appear who, though beta in core personality, will at least know the basics of not alienating/disgusting a woman at first blush”
Yes, but having an idea of the “basics” you mention does not make them alpha. Just a beta dude with an idea.

its also worth pointing out that higher testosterone, long-ring finger sluts probably self-select into higher education and economic independence, so that it is not intelligence or money that causes her to be a slut, she is a slut by her nature and our society just allows for her to be slut AND achieve economic freedom, which just allows her sluttiness to blossom freely.

I had dinner with an old fuck buddy in NYC last week. This girl epitomizes the above description: very intelligent corporate lawyer who touts the Democratic line to the T. Probably a 7 in terms of her face, but an 8 in terms of her body, which she puts through Pilates’ torture six days a week.

She’s never told me how many guys she’s been with, but she’s always hooking up with some new guy (she throws me a bone once in a while too). I’d guess she’s slept with at least 50 guys.

She just turned 35 and is really feeling the heat to find somebody. Most of the conversation that evening revolved around the fact that she can’t find a good guy any more. She said she was recently dating a 33 year old with a massive dick, but he wasn’t really committing over a span of four months, so she cut him loose.

I asked her what she was looking for in a mate. She said younger, hot, very intelligent, with a great job, a sense of humor, and confidence. Really, no shit? I didn’t have the heart to tell her that her chance of finding a guy like that is probably zero. I was just dumbfounded that she, someone who’s entering Cougardom and is thus becoming easier to bang by the day, thinks she can lasso some younger Alpha stud. She should’ve been looking in her late 20s, but I fucked her during her late 20s, and the only thing she was looking for was cock.

I didn’t really feel sympathy for her now that I’ve read this blog and can understand what’s going on out there in the sexual marketplace. I’m just curious now to see if she settles for a Beta around her age, an Alpha who’s much older than her, or goes the Cat Lady route. I’m betting on #3 since she just picked up her second cat.

younger, hot, very intelligent, with a great job, a sense of humor, and confidence.

Jesus, sounds more like a gay. That must be a very high-T girl. I think this blog covered cougarism in some part where the older woman seeking younger guys thing is a myth, that even older women want older, more successful guys. Your friend’s mind must be fucked over by Demi Moore (she’s after Zac Efron now, dontcha know?) type propaganda. Obviously, results may vary, but good luck to her at 35.

So, how does this advice affect normal guys? If you’re in a SWPL mecca, are any bitches with degrees getting married in the 23-28 range? If so, to what kind of guy? If not, then you’re wasting your time if they’re only after club promoters and other misc. alpha. I’ve joked that the real poundcake is up 95 in a more blue-collar city where the secretarial pool is quite fine.

She’s different, that’s for sure. I can tell she’s becoming more bitter as she’s getting older and not getting the type of guy she wants.

“f you’re in a SWPL mecca, are any bitches with degrees getting married in the 23-28 range? ”

It’s rare. I lived in NYC for most of my 20s, and I’m trying to recall a girl getting married in the 23-28 range. I can think of two off the top of my head. Not very positive.

There is an exception to this though: med students/doctors (I’ll call them doctors). Obviously female doctors are very intelligent, hard-working, and a stickler for following the rules (otherwise lives are lost). I had never dated doctors before, but the online dating world connects you to people you never would’ve met in a bar.

These girls really don’t have social lives since they’re either so busy studying or working in the hospital, i.e., they don’t have time to slut around. Since they get into medicine primarily to help people (you could argue that the surgeons are worse and in it for the money/ego), they are generally very nice people with good values.

Now that I’m dating two doctors I’m shocked at how many get married at a young age. Male and female doctors generally marry each other because they don’t have time to find a mate outside their very secluded work/social circles. When I asked one girl I’m seeing why half of her classmates in med school were already married or engaged, she replied that most doctors are pretty down-to-earth people with conservative values.

The drawbacks are that the girls will likely move when placing for residency and fellowship. They are also training to become an attending doctor for at least seven years, but more likely 10 (sub specialty). That means that they are busy working at least 60 hours a week. Nonetheless, I’m excited to have found young, intelligent, down-to-earth girls who haven’t slutted themselves around yet.

Dude, I’d love to meet that lawyer bitch. (I live near NYC.) Sounds like she’s a great time while I look in that harder search for a “quality” girl. I don’t know that I’m everything she’s looking for, but I’m some of it, and she’s not likely to find the full package anyway.

You might be right about female doctors. I don’t get to meet many of them (recent law grad) but I’d sense the motivations might be somewhat different than among other professionals.

You’re becoming a lawyer and want to meet one??! It may last a few encounters, but generally the egos get in the way.

My friend is a dime-a-dozen in NYC and she knows it. I live in Upstate NY and told her to move up here; with her moves in the bedroom, still good looks, and responsible mindset she could very easily snag a quality guy (probably a divorcee, but oh well). But no, she likes the sex-in-the-city lifestyle of working hard, playing hard, hitting the gym six days a week and the cocktail bars as well looking for some dick. She gets lost in the crowd of younger, hotter-looking girls.

If you want that sort of girl, they are everywhere online. Otherwise hit up cocktail bars around Union Square/West Village/Flatiron. Another alternative is to go out in the Upper West Side, where many of them have bought condos now since they’ve saved up some money. I think CH has already talked about this long ago, but corporate lawyers are generally freaks in the sack and will do anything you want. They generally don’t represent long-term partners, but hit up some lawyer chicks in their 30s and prepare for a wild ride.

“I think CH has already talked about this long ago, but corporate lawyers are generally freaks in the sack and will do anything you want. They generally don’t represent long-term partners, but hit up some lawyer chicks in their 30s and prepare for a wild ride.”

Exactly. That’s why I love girls like that for flings. I dated one early 30’s lawyer for a while and it was fun while it lasted. Though with female lawyers, some are just plain nuts. Bitchy I’m fine with. Totally crazy, not so much.

Who knows, I can even do some career networking. THough some lawyers don’t necessary like to date other lawyers – so not sure what girls like your friend think about that.

interesting… my son is in a residency program and dated a fellow resident in the same specialty with sadly disastrous results. surely due to the hothouse, intense turbo-driven world of 70-80 hr work weeks with 20 or so colleagues.

we’ve advised him to look to residents in other specialties but he’s so overworked he has no time to pursue this course. the hospital would do well to help facilitate social get-togethers across disciplines, but they seem pretty brain dead when it comes to their stressed out staffs’ social needs. a shame.

Yes, the hospitals have little pity for their overworked staff, especially in terms of their lives outside of work.

I would advise your son to hit the online dating scene. I think every single doctor (at least female) who wants to meet somebody is going this route nowadays: you can search and set up a date when you have free time, and, most importantly, you’ll be meeting people who are not competing directly with you in the same field.

I’m in finance, which doctors don’t have a clue about since they’re so busy studying and saving people’s lives. Since I’m no Doogie Houser, I learn a lot about the medicine field, and the doctors learn a ton about finance (which most people generally find boring). It actually makes for a very good fit.

Funny. I’m a med student in NYC and 4 of the married/ engaged girls in my class are with guys in finance (myself included). I think it’s a great match.

But I do have to say that a lot of these girls DO end up slutting it up a bit. But I guess not as much as the general population? It seemed a lot to me but I’m finding out otherwise (I guess I was sheltered). Not to give out the med school girl’s secrets but the difference is that they tend to know how to separate relationship material from that guy who is a phone call away for when you have a moment to just get completely disgraced/ pounded to relieve the stress. This keeps things less messy and separates your world so when the time comes they can always deny it and move on like the virtuous girls they are supposed to be. Getting to know my classmates better, I am surprised at the types of things some of the seemingly most conservative girls are into.

I guess this plays into the theory of the smart girls slutting it up. I’m just not sure if I would call this “falling” for game, more like seeking out experiences. Can you “fall” for something you were actively hunting?

That’s my impression of doctors/med students, too. They’re very conservative and sexually inexperienced. All of them, male and female. Pretty everyone I know who was married before age 25 was either a med student or someone marrying a med student. They were also the first people I ever knew to own real estate, even before the Wall Street crowd.

During grad school, one of my roommates was a med student. She told me that in anatomy class, where 3-4 students spent months dissecting a cadaver, on the day they got started on female reproductive organs, a male classmate raised his hand to ask the prof how easy was it to tell a vagina from an asshole. My roommate was no one’s idea of a party girl but even she thought this guy was spectacularly naive.

That female doctor who seems so sweet now? Keep in mind that medicine is a cut throat field, and she slit the throats needed to get where she is (doubly so if she’s specializing). The hours will pound her femininity into dust. And marriage is just another check-box for her accomplishment-obsessed brain.

Female doctors are basically dudes with long hair and a vagina. The difference between lawyerchicks and docs is that docs were better at science than words, so they went to med school. They both tend to have oversized clits, and both have an elevated risk of causing long-term butthurt.

Parting thought: doctors spend all day giving people orders (“doctors orders” after all). Do you really want to shack up with the type of woman who selects for that occupation? If this seems implausible, bear in mind that having a higher IQ doesn’t make you a better person – it makes you better at getting what *you* want.

Thanks for the advice. I think she’ll age well since she’s obsessed with her skin, but I will not be taking her call 10 years from now. Still the girl’s got a beautiful rack with the flattest stomach I’ve ever come across. It makes for a fun one-night stand.

Your interpretation pretty much contradicts Charles Murray’s work, not to mention the work of bloggers like Razib Khan, AE and the Inductivist. Dumb lower class women are much less likely to be conventionally religious, though they likely have higher levels of intuitive supernaturalism. SMV alphas are rapidly gaining a reproductive advantage among the left half of the bell curve. Out of wedlock births are getting out of hand among the less intelligent. Research, buttressed with anecdotal accounts, on places like Harvard and other Ivy League schools tends to show them to be filled with virgins of both sexes. Intelligence also tends to be associated with later intercourse and fewer partners. Dumb girls get around.

Now, is there a particular subculture of Ph.D. candidates, journalists, MBAs and “lawyercunts” who fuck around like bunnies? Absolutely. But let’s not lose sight of the big picture here.

Alternative hypothesis: smart men struggle to gain sexual partners, so the aggregate data on smart people may be misleading. Too lazy personally to find empirical evidence.

I suspect the distribution looks something like this:

Smart men: low number of partners
Smart women: high number of partners
Average men: high number of partners
Average women: low number of partners (most to lose)
Dumb men: Toss up
Dumb women: high number of partners

Projection and the SWPL, they are one and the same. The bottom line, “your typical slut is a smart, educated woman.” Ouch. I feel bad for all the betas who flock to SWPLville DC. Although I guess it depends on what side of North Capitol Street you live in, whether it’s a indie band lead singer or some disgusting democrat politician. See e.g., the Washingtienne; Alfred, Mimi; and Lewinsky, Monica.

Fucking is like eating sugar. Both are quite enjoyable. Both, with discipline, can be curbed.

All this shit to get some alpha chasers isn’t worth it.

It is more alpha to eschew those women and spend your time & resources on yourself than it is to fundamentally change to fulfill some HB10’s list of alpha criterion in order to get a lay.

Why not try to eek up the efficiency of motors or alternators? Why not try to work out the problems of energy losses via heat or other inefficiencies? Why not try to work out how to cheaply convert almost unlimited quantities CO2 to O2 in a machine small enough to be sent into space? Why not try and design an indoor green-house system complete and efficient enough to survive when building Arctic/Siberian outposts? Why not work toward solving the problems holding back sea-cities? Why not do all of these things, instead of sweating, fretting, and working to get some dank pussy to fuck?

Much like television: there’s much more people can do instead of sitting in front of some flashing CRT or LCD panel bathing you in varying levels of red, green, and blue wavelength light, getting off on the patriots whip the giants!

Then why do I give a shit about all these things, yet be so completely ignored by women these days to the point of still being a V-card holder at 25?

I’ve dumped off most prospects of getting anything because to do so would require a fundamental shift into a “dun give uh fuuk!” attitude, and I think this would be a waste of time because that is not me. I don’t get what’s so damn alluring about smelly wet holes that gets people out blowin’ cash, time, and effort to stick their dicks in ’em. Personally, I think it be better to leave the women in their collective stupidity getting pumped and dumped, and I certainly haven’t become ‘hooked’ as I know not what there is to be hooked on (Rephrase: “Don’t know what I’m missin’.”). No I’m not queer either, before anyone suggests it!

You know, Mr. Like a G-6, the things you’ve said and the tone with which you’ve said them reminds me a lot of myself when I was a younger man in my early-to-mid twenties. I think your angry tone is a reaction to the raw, overwhelming power that female sexuality has on a man, especially a young man like yourself. Add to that the cognitive dissonance created by the conflict between your hopeful but, respectfully, naive ideal of woman-as-purity-sweetness-and-light, and the reality that you perceive around you of woman-as-hypergamous-sociopath, and baby, you’ve got the very recipe for that debilitating and dark frustration.

It makes sense that you want to protect the self-identity you’ve come to know yourself by (“…because to do so would require a fundamental shift into a “dun give uh fuuk!” attitude, and I think this would be a waste of time because that is not me.”). But see here, your attitude will change soon enough after you’ve had a few soul-destroyingly bad relationships with these “smelly wet holes.” Hopefully, if your life with women turns out anything like mine, you’ll reach that “kick a good dog enough times and eventually he’ll maul the sweet, sweet skin off of your shattered skull” moment of epiphany and you’ll be back here reading every post you can get your hands on.

Just take my words as a little bit of friendly older-man-to-younger-man advice. Or better yet, consider this your lucky day and think of my reply to your post as a message from future you— because baby, I can see exactly where you’re headed should you choose to brush aside the life-saving, life-changing advice given on this site.

If you genuinely don’t have an interest (as opposed to trying to rationalize your lack of gettin’ some), good for you. I’d keep going if I were you. Women take far more effort than they are worth if you don’t have an intrest.

However, many men’s claims of lack of interest are actually self-defence mechanisms to prevent themselves from feeling shitty and incomplete. (“Well, I don’t want your stinkin’ pussy ANYWAY, so there!”)

“Then why do I give a shit about all these things, yet be so completely ignored by women these days to the point of still being a V-card holder at 25?”

Because giving a shit about these things is different from having successfully done these things. Get back to us when you’ve made billions of dollars from building a sea-city and tell us how women are ignoring you.

Then why do I give a shit about all these things, yet be so completely ignored by women these days to the point of still being a V-card holder at 25?

I take it you’re out there popping bottles in the ice like a blizzard? Yes? Just remember when you drink with women, do it right and get them slizzered. The sober girls around you will start acting like they drunk. As long as you’re sipping sizzurp in your ride like 3-6, eventually you’ll start feeling fly enough to cash in that V-card.

“Fucking is like eating sugar. Both are quite enjoyable. Both, with discipline, can be curbed.”

Sure. With enough discipline, you can suppress nearly any instinct. If that’s how you want to live, knock yourself out.

“Why not do all of these things, instead of sweating, fretting, and working to get some dank pussy to fuck?”

False dichotomy. One can strive for the betterment of civilization and still game chicks. One can pursue more than one interest at a time. By learning some game, you can more efficiently meet your sexual/romantic needs.

In my beta days, I spent vast amounts of brain power trying to figure out women. I would fret over details of interactions and spend a good deal of mental energy worrying about the women in my life. Game gives one the tools and knowledge needed to effectively manage women without too much thought, freeing up those valuable mental resources for more noble pursuits.

Einstein was a horn dog. So was Feynman. Striving to improve society and slaying hood rats are not mutually exclusive.

“Much like television: there’s much more people can do instead of sitting in front of some flashing CRT or LCD panel bathing you in varying levels of red, green, and blue wavelength light, getting off on the patriots whip the giants!”

Nonsensical comparison.

Now, let me ask you, do you really believe the things that you write? Or is it justification to avoid having to go through the pain and hardships of learning game?

Are you merely spinning your resistance to having to change yourself as a noble and righteous cause?

Its amazing that Murray’s book is so reviled amongst many of the chattering classes when you consider how neutered it is. He doesn’t talk about female sexuality or race (after the shitstorm from the last book). How can people put up such a fuss over what is basically just a collection of factual statistics? I guess because it points out what a failure modern society is.

what do you think of the statement that what Murray is really calling for in his book is Mormonism? Largely white strong religous communities with both strong support mechanisms, shaming mechanisms, and traditional mores. It seems they’ve escaped many of the vices Murray talks about in the book.

The “coming apart of the white race in America as detailed in Charles Murray’s new book” says completely the opposite: it’s the dumb, poorly educated women that are least likely to ever marry. Although smart, educated women may be slightly more likely to chase alphas in their 20s, being smart and educated, they eventually do the smart and educated thing and get married (or at least try).

[heartiste: yes, i said all this in the post. where female hypergamy plays a role in white class separation is in the lower classes aping the worst indulgences of the upper classes. so dumb girls are slutting it up like SWPL chicks, but then not curbing themselves and settling down when the settling down is still good. that is, smart chicks are better able to handle their vices.]

Less and less of the lower class ones even bother trying now- they just get knocked up and then play it by ear. Have you ever watched Teen Mom? Scary stuff.

I think sluttiness is just as rampant among lower-class chicks of the type discussed by Murray in his book- it’s just that the negative consequences are much greater for them, since they have fewer social, educational, and financial advantages. That’s part of his point. Much as drug use can be cleaned up and corrected for for an Ivy grad with greater options but destroy the life of a high school dropout.

What happens to all those “Jersey-Shore”-ified working class slutty chicks as they get older? If they’re lucky (savvy), they’ll catch a man and be a “Real Housewives” type, tacky and garish but relatively secure. If not- the stripper pole looms.

Those poor, dumb, religious girls (at least the young and cute ones) just keep looking like better and better marriage partners.

Would have been unthinkable in my old man’s day.

[heartiste: flyover chicks, when they do get married, get married younger than SWPL chicks, but their marriages are less stable and their divorce rate higher. what this study is veering toward is the interpretation that smart chicks are more open to the idea of slutting around, even while they may not experience the negative consequences of the slut lifestyle as much as dumb chicks do.
if any reader is interested, i’d like to see an age of first marriage chart broken down by female class, income, race and age demographic.]

I grew up in middle-to-upper-middle class flyover country, and most of the girls I knew from high school went to regional colleges, joined sororities, and married their accountant/engineer boyfriends right out of college and moved to nice houses in the suburbs. You can find intelligent and pretty girls outside of NYC/SF/DC who want to get married relatively young (and the divorce rate where I am from is low).

I went to an “elite” college and met my husband there- we got married after college and moved to New York City. Even now, we are considered huge freaks for being married in our mid-to-late twenties. It’s difficult to be married young here. My friends just want to go out to bars/clubs and meet guys, which is awkward. And I get approached all of the time by guys who do not seem to care that I am married. I imagine that most girls in big cities are approached all of the time, simply due to the number of people that we encounter daily. It’s just not an environment conducive to stable marriage.

(Also, do men really not care that a girl is married? I am shy and don’t send out indicators that I would be interested.)

That certainly ties in with my experience, but I still find intelligent slutty women, insecure. They want to be like men, but can’t. When such women have partner counts only less than hookers, then you know they are off the rails, especially as they tend to go to great lengths to assert their chastity. Rule of thumb: the more she protests virginity; the sluttier she is.

He is truly pathetic. He’s got a bug up his ass over game, the paleo/Atkins diets…basically everything he does not believe in. I’m surprised he isn’t bandwaggoning the “Ban Bigfoot Hunters from going into the woods” campaign. Some people just do not belong on the Internet, and Alek Novy is their god.

Successful, good-looking women choosing lower status men. I have a couple female friends (both lawyers), who spurned higher status, charismatic peers for lower class guys they knew in high school from their home towns. Both of these girls are noticeably attractive and intelligent, and had more alpha options, but went with someone familiar, safe, that they could comfortably dominate with their higher sexual market value.

I’m wondering if these are just random outliers, or if women are truly becoming men and acquiring “trophy husbands” that they can take care of. I have asked friends of these women why they married down, and their theory is that these girls knew that they had to be in a relationship where they called all the shots and had the final say, and they could only do that with these average guys who feel blessed to get to sleep with them.

Well, not a guy, but, yes, I’ve noticed something similar. I know plenty of female Ph.D. students with husbands/ boyfriends who actually followed them to school without even a job lined up, and then took low status positions as code monkeys/ high school teachers/ IT guys. A female professor of mine actually -recommended- I find a guy with a less demanding career to marry so he’d be able to stay home and do the housecleaning and take care care of the kids so I could stay late and work in the evenings to get ahead, because that’s what she did. Ha.

That arrangement will fail in the long run. I don’t ever see this becoming the norm. Women don’t respect men they don’t look up to. The men will lose the most in this arrangement. Besides, a woman who works too much has no time or desire for sex. That’s a non starter there. What other reason is there to put up with their general insanity? A single man with a moderate income can have more life quality as a bachelor and own all the toys he wants. If he’s married to a career witch, he’ll be spanking to porn anyway and have to listen to her condescending talk on top of it. What’s the benefit of that?

I don’t think there is a dichotomy between the class/economic argument of Murray and female hypergamy. They go hand-in-hand. Without the need for a provider because of the welfare state, unemployed or criminal men become “beta” by not having the characteristics that would make any of the v-tingling occur. The “thug” may be a used as a counter-argument, but poor women aren’t flocking to marry these males in droves at all either.

So if more slutty women are going for good-looking, tall men, what can be said about balding short men in their 40s who want to get in on the action? Can we be rectified with enough game or will our physical deformities make it much harder?

[heartiste: i think you’re a troll, since nowhere in the post did i mention anything about slutty women going exclusively for “good-looking, tall men”, but i’ll answer you anyway. game will help every man. the degree to which game helps a man depends on his starting suite of attractiveness traits. if you are old, bald and short, you won’t suddenly begin banging 8s and 9s. but you will begin banging girls 1 or 2 points better looking than what you have been used to banging. and for many men, that’s enough to carry them across the line from unhappiness to happiness.]

well, if you read between the lines, you’ll see that at your ripe old age, all the 35 year old SWPL ice queens (like PUA rochester was talking about) are now ready to throw down for a ring. You may snag one of them if you bring something to the table to make up for being short and bald. I am reminded of the short, blad divorce lawyer from S&TC marrying the hot one.

I wouldn’t rule out 8s, 40s dude. Besides maximizing your looks (get in shape, have a neat appearance, dress well), and learning game, figure out your market. Tall 20 something 8s and 9s aren’t probably going to happen. Petite early 30s, and you could pull an 8 if your game was tight and your shit was in order. Being short and bald is not a hopeless situation.

A couple things that have significantly helped my looks – I did invisalign and have perfect teeth, I work out several times a week, I maintain a well-kept goatee. I’ll occasionally shave my head, but usually just keep it short and neat.

There is hope for you. My friend’s dad (60yo) is a used car salesman (yes, really). He is 5’9″ (slightly below average) and bald. The man has game like I can’t believe. He divorced my friend’s mom, who is a hot ~45yo MILF. He is now banging a hot 35yo, blonde, multimillionaire, who takes him on exotic vacations all over the world. As a used car salesman, he has developed ways to game people, and it has clearly transferred over to his success with women.

I’m short and balding and mid forties. In my late thirties I was able to have modest sporadic success in North America, but you’ll find greater opportunity to date and therefore shorten your learning curve time of learning the ins and outs of dating if you move to a location where you have higher status relative to the locals.

You can gain at least 2 points to your overall attraction scale by moving.

That won’t be the end of the story – but it can be enough to jump start a better beginning.

I knew a “dumb” girl from a trailer park who didn’t even graduate high school. She’s currently a housewife, happily married to a (omega with latent alpha traits) guy who changes oil for a living, and she just gave birth to a beautiful daughter. This girl went through hell, including all kinds of substance abuse, and physical abuse (REAL physical abuse, not Penelope Trunk-style histrionic look-at-me abuse), and grinding poverty, before she met her husband and straightened out with his help. She doesn’t entertain any illusions of being oppressed by some phantom “patriarchy” and will be the first to let you know that her beloved husband saved her life. She ain’t perfect, but she knows how to cook, clean, and care for her child. What’s more, she’s quite happy with that arrangement. She still lives in a trailer, but she’s happy, and that’s all that matters.

I also got to know a girl in college who had every advantage over the trailer park girl. She was popular, she was extroverted, she was outspoken, she was pretty, she was in shape, she was smart (in the honors program no less), she came from what looked like a well-off family, she had the interest of many handsome men, she had oodles of friends and connections, and she was well on her way to a college degree and a cushy career. She was also a stuck-up, entitled sorority princess, who wouldn’t give you the time of day if you weren’t alpha enough. She had the world on a platter and exemplified every bit of the “strong, smart, independent woman”(tm) trope you could think of.
She is no longer with us, dead (about 10 years ago) by her own hand at the ripe old age of 21:http://www.usforacle.com/2.5741/smiles-laughter-and-jelly-bellies-1.633254

If you’re reading this, incensed and thinking I made it all up, there is not a damn thing I can do to make you believe me.
If however, this causes you to stop and reconsider the feminist “strong woman” propaganda being pumped into every western woman’s head 24/7, then you are opening your mind and moving in the right direction.

The careerist carousel is not the nirvana that Cosmopolitan makes it out to be.

Ladies, ignore the wisdom of the manosphere (and the Chateau in particular) at your own peril. Keep your hypergamy and your desire in check. Remember what you are and be honest with yourself.

Ya, that does seem to help. But even then, the jealousy and want will itch and burn and bother her. She’ll want her man to be more tamed, want what her girlfriends have or pretend to have, want what the movie stars have, want want want.

A woman fresh in love relatively isolated from friends and family is at her happiest.

I’m wondering if she committed suicide knowing that in no other place would she have found such a captive audience, and that once in the real world she’d have to deal with girl politics and the idea of sleeping around to get ahead + developing real skills that had economic value to the workplace.
So many questions, so few answers.

I have lived in San Francisco and Chicago, both cities chock-full of these type of women. The only solution to female hypergamy is to find foreign-born girls in these cities that cling to a remnant of old-world tradition, if you seek a long-term relationship.

CH, once you’ve dated a laywer chick (be it in DC or Chicago, I can’t tell the difference), you will never, ever, date another one or at least not for more than a pump and dump.

All this pumping and dumping is cause for concern, as female hypergamy is now ushering in a new side effect of the Sexual Revolution:

Another better reason to avoid lawyer chicks and other assorted SWPL cock-carousel riders. Personally, I’m not going to hedge a bet that we’ll be able to effectively treat STD’s as fast as the sluts are spreading them.

One often overlooked factiod of why society originally put limits on the much more dangerous female sexuality is because of the rapid spread of disease. Although protecting the the productive beta classes might be helpful by encouraging women to not sleep around, one can’t underscore the importance of the long-term health implications of widespread sluttiness.

At some point, instead of checking credit scores to determine a partner’s worthiness, we might be asking, when was the last time you were checked and for what?

Another solid case for putting a check on uncontrolled female hypergamy. Sluts must and should be shamed, as it is for the best of society as a whole. Sorry lawyer chicks, a whore is still a whore, even if she is wearing pantsuits.

I hope every man on this blog is smart enough to wear a condom every single time and dispose of it somewhere she can’t retrieve it. The sole exception would be if there is paperwork verification of both a recent STD test and a tubal ligation, which would only happen in an LTR.

I’m a BIG fan, but here is where you get delusionally biased. High achiever/earner women DON’T NEED to settle down. So, maybe they want to ride the cock carousel into their mid 40s. Men surely do the same, so why is that so hard to understand. Good for these women. You can’t bash low IQ golddigers who try to trap a guy into marriage, and then bash high IQ “female players” in the same breath.

Ok, so Indep. women want cocky guys with game and attitude, and successful men want hot thin women. Or, maybe they want BOTH. Cocky game AND money/success as a given. This, however, doesn’t make them slutty. It can also make them very choosy. They need a man less than most women. They don’t trade sex for security, for example.

Trading sex for security is not a conscious choice, it’s a deep-seated evolutionary algorithm that can fuck up a woman’s mental health if it remains unfulfilled.
The limbic system is doing all the math here. Everything else is to be filed under “spinster rationalization”.

Women hitting the wall without a stable partner and full with memories of past alpha lovers are the most miserable creatures on earth, independently from their financial status.

The problem is these “indep” women then wail and gnash their teeth when they’re alone, loose in all the wrong places, and the biological clock has stopped. The more you encourage this shit, the more harpy screeching you gotta endure. Me, I don’t want none o’ dat.

My point is that trading sex for security is not a conscious decision. It’s a hardwired evolutionary algorithm. The limbic system is doing all the math, and the woman can become miserable if the algorithm remains unfulfilled.

Because women at their core are here on this earth for one and only one reason…..to carry on the species and reproduce. When a woman’s brain is going fucking haywire and she can’t settle down because she constantly thinks there is something over that hill over yonder that is bigger and better than the current cock she is servicing….society suffers….and the whole batch of social norms and conditions that keep this earth running at a normal clip go to hell in a hand basket. Women weren’t’ designed to be taking 50 cocks in a single lifetime. They were designed to be producing babies and caring for the village. And that’s why this shit doesnt’ work and that’s why it isn’t working.

Nobody can convince anyone on this blog that it’s normal to get married and to start a family at the expired age of 35. It’s totally abnormal. My fucking mom had four kids by 29, now a days a women is probably servicing her 35th cock by that age.

There’s a problem with CH’s attempt to link this study to Charles Murray’s book. Murray’s stats say that it’s white people at the lower end of the spectrum who are working less, becoming less conservative, less likely to marry, more likely to divorce and more likely to be in unstable relationships.

White people at the higher end of the spectrum, on the other hand, are more likely to go to Church, more likely to marry, less likely to divorce and more likely to have stable, happy relationships.

[heartiste: as i clarified in the post, those are not the relevant variables that should concern the urban male on the make. the one factor that matters is HOW LONG DO THE WOMEN WAIT TO GET MARRIED. here, you see the smart educated chicks waiting longer than the dumb chicks (when the dumb chicks do get married), because smart chicks, as this study shows, are MORE OPEN to short term relationships and nontraditional arrangements. their openness means that they don’t have compunctions about screwing around with alphas while they are young. this has repercussions for beta males living among smart chicks; namely, they see these girls spending their best years fucking around with alphas before settling down. murray’s statistics miss this phenomenon.]

CH is right about the hypergamy, of course, and this is something that Murray misses. Middle and low class girls hate beta males. They bang alphas who love ’em and leave ’em and they thus become poor single mothers. Middle and low class beta males have relatively little chance of having a getting a good wife and family, so they drop out [some move to Asia where chicks love white beta males], work less and participate less in the community.

This process has not worked itself out fully. End result – bankruptcy all ’round. Much more of North America will start to look like Detroit [unless everyone turns hardcore Catholic or Muslim].

Is it that women’s sexual behavior has changed, or that our education system and credential-based economy have in essence extended the date of marriage? Maybe it has nothing to do with sexual behavior or desire to be married, but rather its a function of when a woman is settled down in one place long enough to meet someone and sustain a relationship? If the smart chicks are going to grad school, then they don’t view undergrad as a time to meet their mate, so they play around. And then they often plan on working in a different city after grad school, so they don’t take grad school relationships serious and play around. Then, when they’re 26-28, in their first job, they decide that they are “ready” for a real relationship.

I think this is the conscious mindset of most of my friends. But of course, they are also enjoying their slut years and loving the alpha cock. I don’t think this contradicts what was said in the post. The end result is still smart women entertaining short term flings.

It’s the smart, educated chicks who dig the cock and, by deduction, it’s the smart, educated chicks who will fall for short-term pickup game more than dumb chicks.

Bottom line: your typical slut is a smart, educated woman.

I guess my main reaction was to these statements, which just aren’t true.

You could have said something like the following:

“Not all sluts are dumb and lower class. There’s a segment of girls at the very top that pretty slutty too. In fact, they’re the ones that respond best to verbal game like that advocated by many pick-up artists.”*

But you couldn’t leave it at that.

*We all know that lower class chicks just go in for overt thuggishness and cavemanning. That doesn’t make them any less slutty.

[heartiste: dude, did you read the study at all? smart chicks are a-ok with STRs, with dating men who aren’t necessarily good providers, and with nontraditional dating roles. can this study’s conclusions be squared with murray’s data? i say yes. but to do so requires taking hypergamy into account. the female hypergamous impulse is strongest when they are prettiest; that is, in their late teens and 20s. a later age at first marriage means that the typical smart, educated girl can slut it up before doing the right thing and settling with a halfway decent provider by the time she’s hitting her late 20s. i believe that is the dynamic at play here among the SWPL set, and i see this dynamic everywhere i turn. almost every girl i know plays by this script, and none but two are lawyers. so just because smart, upper middle class girls get married at higher rates and stay married at higher rates doesn’t mean SWPL betas are getting rewarded in turn with lots of great monogamous SWPL chick sex. more likely it means those betas are standing on the sidelines while the babes in their primes enjoy the luxuries of alpha males until they’re ready to commit (at which point a great settling out occurs where the hottest women manage to extract commitment from the alpha males and the mediocre women either choose solitude or the company of beta males). the cacophony of beta male griping from the smart set is hinting at a real society-wide phenomenon of female hypergamy unleashed to fulfill its pleasures completely.]

I’d agree with Heartiste that the smart chicks know when their value runs out so will be the most reckless with the youth that they have.
And they’ll turn it around on the man who questions their decisions with the sharp words “I didn’t hurt you, so I don’t care” and “You have to treat me as more than a human being”.
The easiest way not to get into their drama is the policy, “ass, cash or grass, nobody rides for free”.
The smart chicks may not always have book knowledge, but they know about social pressure and positioning their outbursts and requests along with aligning their friends and “useful idiots” to get what they need without reciprocation.
The wheels are always spinning in their heads.

2)Smart, educated, careerist women are less interested in a man’s money or career status.

This may be the case while they are in their 20’s, at their physical peak and happy to ride the cock carousel but as they approach their 30’s many start looking for a man they deem “worthy” of them.
I also think that many of these career women, having done a decade or so of the corporate grind, secretly wish for a high earning male that can “take care of them” financially while she pumps out a few units and takes up a few interesting hobbies to keep her occupied.

A race/people will fall apart beginning with the increase in women’s rights. It’s all just common sense really. A nation/country is created BY MEN for men to have a geographic space to be with THEIR women and create THEIR progeny.

The second women get all these “rights” is the second that they turn against men, don’t get married, and prefer men/enemies from other nations to invade.

Women are supposed to have kids… that’s their biological imperative. So you can’t use an evolutionary argument as the basis for reduced fecundity. Female fecundity is an epic fail in the 30’s.

The obvious explanation is that this is all cultural maxism michief (like most things). Increasing promiscuity is essential to destroying religion and marriage… and thereby western civ with its oh so evil capitilist system. In other words, these snowflakes are being conned into wasting their prime years collecting lovers instead of setting themselves up for the future. The whole “sow your wild oats” is hammered at college women and delaying maturity until their 30’s.

I do want to emphasize one thing from Murray’s book. The conventional wisdom is that it is the upper middle classes which have abandoned conventional religion the most. This is not the case at all. They are in fact the most conventionally religious segments of society. However, our elite elite, particularly in major urban centres, is almost completely non-religious. They’re really, really secular. I have no doubt that the women in that non-religious elite elite are in fact pretty slutty.

Interestingly, the sluttiness belt among women seems to match the demographics of those who vote for the left, a coalition of the isolated and the ignorant.

concur. There’s the teen mom slut (beyond prole), there’s the DC PR slut…the type of bitch who goes to college and wants to rule the world, ends up getting a law degree. Prob an atheist commie who really likes Louis Vuitton handbags. Then, there’s the poundcake that went to school for her MRS degree. She’s moving back home town after college, not DC, and is … pulling this out of my ass … more likely to marry before turning 30, and would like one of you higher income betas as a husband (even if she did fling with a BMOC in college). conventional religious, maybe prone to serial monogamy, maybe one ONS after a hard break up. She’s probably waiting for the ring from the bf, the bf whose betaness she finds endearing.

[heartiste: not necessarily. but it’s a leading indicator. after all, smart chicks are 1. more novelty-seeking, 2. less restrained by religious or cultural edict and 3. horny. and even when the smart chicks aren’t sleeping around, it’s not like that benefits beta males in any way. a chaste women will still turn her loving attentions to the alpha males in her midst. anecdotally, i know of a SWPL girl who is oddly religious about her chastity and plans to wait until marriage to give herself over “completely” (i.e. to let guys penetrate her vagina and not just her mouth). but she still ignores beta males and dates only alphas. naturally, once these alphas find out she’s a cocktease, they usually head for the hills after a couple of months.
ps this study is yet more ancillary evidence that self-reported sex data from the GSS should be taken with a grain of salt.]

What? Now’s the time to drop in. You can do whatever the fuck you want, be broke and underemployed and still bang hot chicks by the wheelbarrow-full. You can juggle multiple chicks who’ll suspect it and still stay with you. Hell I haven’t tried it but you could probably impregnate a few of them along the way with impunity.

My sense is that to “drop out” in these parts usually means to abandon one or more of the usual goals of US men: acquiring capital/ property by working for an employer full time or more, marriage, children, status/ power in his home country, etc. Some men “drop out” by moving abroad, some men “drop out” just by eschewing marriage.

More or less it means to abandon or reduce contact and dependency on society. Getting off the radar, stop paying taxes, stop propping up the welfare state, move to a foreign country/go ghost in your own, etc…

I have to concur with these findings… Although I will note that while having wealth and power isn’t necessary to attract women, it is the traits which men with wealth and power tend to project which attract women. One could argue that those traits are what lead to wealth and power, but that is purely a chicken and egg type of argument of which came first…

Wealth & Power is all relative to the perception of your target. Game teaches you how to ‘create’ these attributes with your current life setup (job,dwelling, etc) and spike attraction in your target.

Regardless, ‘attitude’ (ie game strategies, tactics and application) trumps all. A good artist can illicit his target’s values and align his true chacteristics (or make them up if you can fabricate non-verbal) to relate to the target while projecting the ‘wealth & power’ ‘confident’ ‘popular’ ‘high status’ ‘whatever’ traits to help your getting laid.

If you’re out with 22yr undergrad, she’s so young she doesn’t know shit about shit. Whether you make $50k/year or $500k/year, doesnt matter. As long as you hold your frame that you’re “successful” “confident” she’ll see her version of wealth and power in you….and slob your knob…

In your interpretation, smart(er) girls in general would have to go from not even holding hands throughout the end of high school (while all the lower class girls are already screwing around) to suddenly majorly slutting it up in college and then settling down to stable marriages. That is a pretty implausible narrative. This also does not match anecdotal reports I get from the Ivy League. You do not go to Harvard for your undergrad if you want to get laid.

On the other hand, lawyer chicks, Ph.D students etc. do have a major reputation for sluttiness. What Murray’s stats are missing is this bifurcation among out upper middles class.

[heartiste: ok, fair enough. the study you posted seemingly contradicts the study i posted on at least one metric. i’d point out, though, that harvard chicks represent the very topmost slice of female intelligence. their numbers are so small as to be meaningless on a society-wide scale. most SWPL chicks are smart, smarter than the median that’s for sure, but they aren’t harvard grads. the handful of female top tier ivy grads i know are weird and not very attractive. so i’d chalk up their relative chastity to lack of opportunity + whatever personaity quirk they have which turns them off to sex.

as it is, because of all this contradicting data, i now want to see the underlying hard data for this study. GSS self-reports don’t cut it anymore. the science of sluttiness has to be better than that to account for the powerful human tendency to lie on the subject of sexual habits.]

It’s not so much about the slutting it up – that does have its own downsides, but it has ultimately always been a suboptimal female mating strategy – it’s for whom the alpha female pines, and that has been devolving for 40 years from the family man to the promiscuous man.

In the state of nature, trying to get with the promiscuous man is the optimal female mating strategy (it is of course suboptimal on the societal level, and thus traditionally considered immoral – that is how civilization happened) via the sexy son hypothesis – i.e. the female can get around her physiological limits (only one child per 9 months) by making sure her seed combines with the maximally promiscuous man, producing offspring more likely to be able to bust the one per nine-month limit.

Society still has few qualms about condemning the promiscuous man, but feminism has destroyed society’s ability to constrain the equivalent female behavior, with predictable results.

Smart, educated White women won’t find the current number Beta Males willing to marry them at age 35 after decades of riding the carousel forever. Basically as the Beta Males know the score, and that information leaks out, they will be far more likely to take market advantage by at best, short-term commitments, i.e. soft monogamy themselves. There are a lot of substititions for your typical woman in this situation.

First, porn. The availability of porn does a lot to lower the market power of your typical urban educated woman age 35 with over 30 lovers (which is not atypical at all and may even understate the situation). Secondly, Game. Even the knowledge of it, and various attempts to practice it, lowers the market value of women in this state/strata. Thirdly, lowering of social taboos and standards is not a “only for women” affair — it lowers it for everyone, making prostitution and the use of prostitutes, or porn, or sex tourism, acceptable. Which in turn lowers the market value for women age 35 or so. Fourth, the widespread assumption that most women on the market age 35 have had many, many lovers, little ability to bond, and are obviously settling for a man they don’t love again lowers their market value. Even for women who may be divorcing out of a long-term relationship, or the equivalent, or widowed, or had long spells of celibacy for various reasons. Fundamentally, the market works both ways, there must be willing buyers, and a woman of age 35 or so has really little ability to bond deeply with a man, and thus far less market value no matter what her situation might be.

In short, I’m predicting a market adjustment. As more and more women age into their thirties, more and more of their male peers are not going to be beta male providers anyway. Those that do are for the above reasons, likely to value them less.

Or, look for a rapid collapse in marriage among the upper income groups. Rising first marriage ages are simply not sustainable, given the obvious market adjustments that are coming. It is true that feminists and others are attempting to use shame to control beta male behavior, that tool works fairly poorly and particularly when all that is on offer is a woman of rapidly fading attractiveness, limited fertility, and strongest emotional attachments to her first Alpha male lovers. The attempt to preserve the current mate market for women is likely as doomed as all other attempts to limit the spread of knowledge in Western Europe.

I think also the beta males will start to react by doing whatever it takes to become Alpha. That means basically we are looking at some sort of internal war among Upper Class Whites by men to achieve the highest amount of social status and power. Not Mark Zuckerberg power (women don’t go nuts over him, which is the critical thing), but Russell Brand power. Brand and guys like him command the premium — the hottest women, when they are hottest. If you deliberately set out to create a war for status and women, among Upper Class men, you could not have done a better job. Wars in whatever form are of course reliable wealth destroyers.

Most beta males are beta males because they choose to be. One has to WANT to learn Game, and of the men I have run into over the years, most tune themselves out to any attempt to get them to see the light. My brothers are perhaps the only ones who will listen. One in fact tried to introduce me to the concept, not knowing I was already into it as well. I think it has to do with the dominant liberal philosophy that has taken hold of our civilization: liberalism creates beta males. And until liberalism shows signs of collapsing, there will continue to be large numbers of beta males.

The men that don’t want to learn game, have their eyes closed to other men getting crapped on, or think that the girl they’re interested in hasn’t been roaming around the carousel.
Until and unless they’re forced into a social situation with the girl to see that she thinks of them as less than nothing unless she has a use for them, they’re not going to wake up.
For some the point at which they’re needed is really costly, and they get sucked into the idea that they have to give even more to get any attention.
The Nigerian scam (applied to romance), in real life.

you are the kelly kapoor of this blog: everything you discuss is framed through the lens of celebrity tabloid fodder. did you ever consider that the smoke and mirrors PR glam life of celebs might not be the best to draw empirical conclusions from?

Israel has a high proportion of expatriates from other countries where conservatism dominated, or post-soviet union where conservatism also dominated to a different degree. Also there is a large fear inducement to procreate due to the geopolitical situation.

Time will tell but Israel is a different model altogether.

There are studies coming out of Israel that are showing single motherhood increasing and other impacts if you search for them there are there. Also you have to remember that very religious segments of society simply live under a different social and to a large degree lawful code than other parts of society.

Israel? Smoking hot women? Surely you jest. They are all fatass warpigs with dark hair in ringlets and moustaches. And, they’ll rip your nuts off at the slightest provocation. Fuck Israeli bitches and blokes and Israel period.

This was not my observation. The young ones tend to be in very good shape and fatass warpigs few and far between. I wouldn’t consider most of them “smoking hot” but still far more 7-8’s than you would see in most of the USA.

Personally I place the difference on diet. The economy more resembles that of an island. Everything grown there (mostly vegetables, poultry and sheep/goats) is affordable. Everything else is imported and very expensive. Especially the junk food so common in the US diet. Also a far heavier reliance on walking. Fuel is expensive.

“Another girl in the group, per­haps to her credit, at least wanted to offer some advice. She said, in per­fect English: “If you respect women, they won’t respect you.” I was absolutely mor­ti­fied that a woman — a teenage girl who is still grow­ing up, espe­cially — would believe this. But the more that I reflected on Israeli cul­ture, the more under­stand­able it became. Israel is a very tra­di­tional soci­ety — for bet­ter and for worse.”

” the handful of female top tier ivy grads i know are weird and not very attractive. so i’d chalk up their relative chastity to lack of opportunity + whatever personaity quirk they have which turns them off to sex.”

Right, it’s the tier below the topmost academic tier that contains the most progressive – and (superficially) desirable – women. They are not unattractive or nerdy enough to have to make academic achievement a serious goal. They can achieve their aim – propelling themselves into the top social strata and a into a vibrant social life – by getting an education in marketing, public relations, or corporate law and then riding the alpha cock carousel in the urban SWPL wonderland of studio apartments, organic supermarkets and slutty Saturday nights. Until their early 30s when reality starts to infect them with a nascent dread of impending irrelevance and they latch on to the nearest spineless beta worm and blow his life savings on a twenty thousand dollar wedding. The modern whore’s life Arc of Triumph.

This is poor reasoning. There either is a positive correlation between promiscuity and intelligence, or there isn’t. For instance, are extremely beautiful women less desirable because they are outliers? See my point?

Intelligence is not a trait that is either present or absent. There are varying degrees of intelligence, usually measured on the IQ scale, presumably correlated at various levels with other traits. So one can imagine a relative-to-average intelligent woman being promiscuous and another extremely intelligent relative-to-average chaste woman. My contention is that at the top tiers of intelligence and academic achievement, the correlation is with physical and social unattractiveness, while that may not be the case in the tiers further down, even though those women may be relatively high-achieving. In other words, the girls at the top of the class are weird nerds.

The TSA is being accused of singling out hot, sexy women to go through the body scanners.

My theory: As it becomes common knowledge that TSA agents select the most attractive young females to be scanned, the women who aren’t chosen will become increasingly bitter.

Of course it won’t manifest that way. Aging feminists won’t come out and say that they’re pissed off over not being selected (and thus validated as ‘hot’). They’ll do it under the guise of wanting to protect women in general.

One of the comments at that feminist site:

“I watched this exact thing happen to three young, very attractive women at JFK around Thanksgiving. The TSA agents were splitting people between the scanner and the regular metal detector. They sent all the guys and most of the women through the metal detector, but, when they got to these three women, who were traveling together, suddenly all three in a row had to go through the scanner.

Might have been a coincidence, but if the TSA at JFK are anything like the ones in Dallas, I’m guessing not.”

Every single fuck buddy relationship I’ve had have been with really smart chicks.

1. They know they are going places in life, and want to, thanks to their upbringing as The Smart Girl

2. They know that because of #1, being tied down impedes their progress

3. Being of higher intelligence and usually left-brain orientation (one FB is now an aerospace chick, two in pre-med) they can separate their emotions from sex better. In all cases, they were the ones who initiated the fuck buddy formalization procedure

4. Smart chicks are ruthlessly cunning and horny. They enjoy it. They lie to friends and family like clockwork as they come over for dirty quickies and try to keep their dalliances under the radar. Their sneakiness and craftiness gets them off.

5. Similar to #4, being as good of liars as they are, they know they won’t have any problem getting a boyfriend when the time comes, a man they will charm into obliviousness of her past. Seen it happen.

@ No. 4: Not with me (or any man worth his salt) they couldn’t. I’ve a super sensitive slut detection system (strong rewards, obviously, for seeking them out has aided this) and will be able to smell the filthy, slutty, cumwhore on them.

Those “smart chicks” don’t handle social situations where they have to ante up.
They usually “clam up” when people manage to defeat their rationalisations, then go home and run relational aggression.
They also play “let’s see how much fun I can have with my friends so other people think I’m cool”.
However, they’re dearly vulnerable to jealousy plotlines.

Thanks for this FR. It gives valuable insight into the hypergamy process. The men who are finally conned into breaking bread with these sluts get thrown into the asset or child custody meat-grinder should they get married or have a kid. Leopards don’t change their spots which is why legal reform is more necessary today than ever before.

harvard chicks represent the very topmost slice of female intelligence

My guess is that as you get to the very smartest girls sluttiness actually increases again. Undergrads at good universities, virgins. Ph.D./law students at the same places, whores. Sluttiness may come in a reverse S curve.

There is also the possibility that a lot of smart girls embrace sluttiness in theory, but not in practice, while the lower orders do the opposite. Murray talks about not preaching what you practice. So, you’d have to look at the wording of the questions on the study you cited, not just the abstract. Being theoretically open to a fling doesn’t mean having one. Smarter people definitely approve of premarital sex more than dumber people, but that doesn’t mean they practice it more.

GSS self-reports don’t cut it anymore.

In general, the trends are pretty obvious, if not the exact numbers. I am guessing that almost all of the lying is going on among women, though with the qualification that some men are lying too. But I will predict that most of the lying among women is among the dumbest girls (they often can’t remember who they slept with, and, yes, it’s that bad) and those who already report fairly high numbers (bad character traits go together, you’re much more likely to have a girl lie downwards from 14 to 7, than from 2 to 1.)

The sluttiest chicks being at the very top is consistent with my Ivy League experience (though to be fair, those were also future lawyers). I’ve never seen anything quite like that level of whore. Only girl I ever knew who would literally find strangers off the internet to come and beat her during sex was in law school. But I think you’re fooling yourself if you think that “undergrads at good universities” are keeping their pants on. I actually think the earlier formulation you described as “implausible” – good girl in high school, slut in college, then marriage – is consistent with my observations. Girls who were good in high school were usually constrained by their surroundings and home environment, it’s part of what makes them “smart” to begin with (since aptitude is strongly influenced, and caused, by home environment). Once they are removed, many I’ve known (anecdotally) have immediately had “something to prove” and went seriously slutty in college before some of their intelligence and upbringing reasserted itself and they came to their senses in time to end the carousel a couple years before they hit the wall, maybe get “senior panic” at their college or grad school, and settle down with the last guy in line at the carnival.

The studies are ambiguous enough to make hard scientific analysis difficult, but at least as a narrative it’s consistent with my experience.

I have grim tidings…. your girls are ALL whores. They’ve been spooged on dozens of times by many different men. They’ve made porn movies, taken it up the ass and been degraded in ways you can’t imagine. The issue isn’t women bonding with men, but what man on earth could truly love a difiled slut that until recently would have been run out of town and called a harlot that a dog catcher wouldn’t have married. You wonder why cultural marxists are so smart… making women slutty blows up the system because only an epic fail loser would marry these washed up sluts. You wonder why men don’t marry.. who would these loathesome whores? What a comical joke to make every man marry a whore… sound’s like a line from Sympathy for the Devil.

Back in the day women “saved themselves” as a respectful token for their future husband? Does anyone see that happening now? Yes, a prize virgin was worth marrying. A defiled barely fertile 35 year old washed up slut?

You’re absolutely right. And every time this subject comes up, I must stress how pertinent this study is: http://tinyurl.com/7erlzzn

The summary is that girls in their 30s with over 15 lifetime sexual partners have only a 17% chance of remaining married. We all know that the modern urban SWPL woman has had probably twice that number of partners before she even got out of college.

Women are complete junk for marriage after age 25 or 3 cocks, whichever comes first. You are gambling half your life fortune on a lame nag if you marry a slut.

I hear you, man. I don’t make a distinction anymore between a non-virgin and a whore.

You lost your hymen? Then you’re a whore, doesn’t matter if it was a horse riding accident.
You had a past boyfriend but you’re still a virgin? You’re a whore too. Because blowjobs and saddlebacking also count.

And I’m still curious as to why the pseudo-enlightened guys on this board are still not making the distinction. Stop dignifying “nice girls with few LTRs” as marriage-material. They’re not. If you marry a non-virgin, you’re a chump. Simple as that.

And what the fuck is marriage anyway? I’m taking the soft harem route. Tired of this shit.

No. Arabs have a small pool of sluts that they play with, and most of the girls remain virgins.
They’re catching up on us, but that’s the way they do it, like our grandfathers were doing.
Homosexuality is marginal. You should really try getting rid of your redneck fantasies.

I think you just miss the shameful streaks of hot goo streaming down your cheeks from those lost years. Its ok, if you stop before 30 you’re not gay. So humiliating, yet so delicious…. No woman ever made you feel so in touch with yourself.

Lol, some virgins don’t have any hymen ripping the first time they have sex (or second, or third), it’s a very unstraightforward way to tell if they are a virgin or not. Some hymens are just stretchable, and some girls play with vibrators before they get any real cock. Why not just say “all women are whores regardless of how much sexual contact they’ve had” and be done with it?

Cunts thinks what your average BosWash lawyercunt really wants is a paunchy beta who does more than his share of housework. More telling, though, is that she doesn’t consider this “settling” and this is a choice towards which all women, not just those careening toward the wall, should warm themselves. Once again, there go feminists with their sticky concept of choice. I expect a self-confessed former member of the Socialist Workers Party to be ignorant of and otherwise deny the concept of human nature. I just never thought I would see the entire progressive edifice that fosters so much of this crap implode within the lifetimes of its originators, and that I would enjoy it so much from my poolside lounge chair.

What matters is who a woman sleeps with in her best years, not who she settles with in her 30s. Marriage rates are deceiving.

Let’s examine a few facts to explain Murray:

1) Dumb girls get married younger, and thus have more time and options to divorce. A woman married at 35 knows by 40 she has no options if she divorces. A woman married at 20 can find another man at 25 if she divorces.

2) Dumb girls are less able to use birth control. If urban SWPL chicks slut it up they almost always use condoms/are on the pill. Dumb chicks get caught up in the heat of the moment.

3) Dumb girls tend to marry dumb guys, who are much more likely to lose jobs or have money problems then smart guys. This leads to divorce.

4) Dumb girls get welfare to not get married, smart girls do not.

5) Dumb girls get welfare to have children, smart girls have to pay massive daycare and private school fees when they have children.

6) Dumb girls don’t need to move to a “good school district” after getting knocked up. Smart girls need to pay big money and leave the city to get away from NAMs.

7) Put simply, children are a source of income for dumb girls. They are a drain on income for smart girls.

So none of this is surprising. Smart urban SWPLs slut it up in their 20s then dutifully marry in their 30s. Use of birth control keeps the out of wedlock birth statistics down even though a lot of cock is being ridden.

” the handful of female top tier ivy grads i know are weird and not very attractive. so i’d chalk up their relative chastity to lack of opportunity + whatever personaity quirk they have which turns them off to sex.”

the ivy leagues were formerly all male and set the curriculum at a level where a really bright guy could handle it with a lot of work.

paradoxically you don’t find a lot of bright women in these environments (good looking or otherwise). women’s IQ distribution is closer to the middle of the bell curve so bright women have to struggle to keep up with their male classmates. the environment favors neurotic female grinds over those with pure intelligence.

My HB niece just went through Ivy on a four-year free ride. She has centerfold-looks above and below the shoulders.

Neurotic is the LAST word I’d use to describe her or her peers. Today’s toned down, NAM friendly, course tempo made it a cruise from start to finish. That’s 4.0s from kindergarten — or whenever they start handing out grades these days.

—–

She’s off to medical school to get her M.D. and an M.D. — if you get the drift.

She’s ALREADY decided that she’s going to settle for Dr. Right.

Her biggest problem: she’s such a knockout that admissions can’t reconcile her with her scholastic record. ( Hint: having a photo-graphic memory helps out with standardized tests. )

Why do you think/ believe that suddenly academia is taking a keen interest in SMP? After all most female faculty members are feminist, why would they risk of pointing out their own negative attributes/ behavior? I guess I asking why would you give out your best kept secret?

It is dawning upon Boomers that they’ll need smart people to start having children again to keep them living in the style to which they’ve become accustomed. Beats importing another 15 mil from Mexico.

Everything noted above was driven by the overpopulation scare that peaked 15-or-so years ago, whose primary effect was to deprivilege (and even to delegitimize) reproduction, and thus fathers. Women raised at the height of the scare are now 28-34 and thus ground-zero for maximum slutitude/hypergamy.

Things are improving among younger women on the slutting-it-up front, if not yet the lusting for bad (promiscuous) men front. This is a problem in that they’re still screening out the good father types specifically for being good father types, even if they are no longer screwing every bad father type with a pulse. If society wants more kids again, we’ll fix that soon.

The SWPL high achieving woman who only pursues alpha is like the beta who spends 3 hours a day jacking off to porn. They’re both giving in to their base instincts and not doing what mature adults would be doing in their situation. If anything, the SWPL woman is worse in that she’s blowing the height of her sexual power, while the beta is marking time until his arrives.

Correction, they’re both giving in to their base instincts and not doing what’s best for _society_.

One should consider that our Grandparents are our grandparents because their grandparents followed rules that worked. Many of the “new” ideas that BGLTSAEIEIO blank-slaters are so eager to try have, no doubt, been tried before… but the descendents of societies that did it that way aren’t with us and no record is preserved as a warning. Perhaps this is why the future will be different… 2000 years from now it will be possible to bring up CH and the rest of the backlash-o-sphere with perfect recall. One will be able to still make a usual charge like our, “This is what happened to Ancient Rome!” except this time they’ll have our blogs.

The Inductivist says mean IQ for college grads has dropped to 105. Whoa. I didn’t expect a college degree to be a huge predictor of intelligence, but wow. Certainly this isn’t WHY college is so worthless, but it certainly is a good indicator that it is — just a finishing school churning out obedient little worker bees. Ugh.

Anyway, read the abstract, the study isn’t equating having a good education and career with having a high IQ at all. It’s just investigating the sexual and romantic relationship choices of high IQ women, and noting that such women are in “an environment where women can use that intelligence to attain educational and career opportunities.” Education isn’t part of the study.

Statistically, this is correct; the female bell curve is much narrower than the male bell curve. The vast majority of women are of average intelligence; if 50% of SWPL women are getting college degrees, clearly this means that a good percentage of them do not have high IQs, even if their average is somewhat higher than the average for women in general.

Murray also mentioned this fact in a piece about education: given the current size of the undergraduate population, it would seem that colleges are dipping as far down as IQ 104. Perhaps we should make finer distinctions among the college-educated class? Is a woman considered ‘smart’ if she has an IQ of 110? I think there are tons of women in this range who attend college, yet this is considered average (usually 90-110), and if they were men they would be considered as such.

I work with a chick in her early 30’s that just completed her Masters degree.
Looking at this alone you might think she was intelligent.
Talk to her for 3 minutes and you would realise that her vacant look is indicative of her empty fucking head.
She thinks she has acomplished something but in reality she’s just another overqualified idiot churned out from the production line of Australian universities eager to make a buck due to a lack of proper Government funding.

Reminds me of this Masters student that was submitting an “application for online security”.
I asked her, so what programming language is this written in?
“Linux”.
(Same girl says Steve Jobs headhunted her and was on the verge of signing her on to Apple on his deathbed) …😡

Yep and watch it all come crashing down If that dumb butthole Sanscrotum gets the Repblican nomination handing Obambi the reelection sending the US economy to hell with the fluff jobs females suck on. The Beta provider will have his shot. He’ll fuck it up.

Up until very recent times — and in the West — gals just did NOT marry guys their own age.

The global norm was for an age spread of 12 to 16 years. That bias held sway for the better part of the last 10,000,000 years. You still see it with ALL of the other primates.

Silver back gorillas are normally TWICE as old as their squeeze. That also holds true for chimps.

A man’s beard turns grey for the exact same reason a silver back does: it means that he’s FINALLY of full adult status. For the typical guy, silver/ grey hair starts in his beard — in his late twenties.

Whereas, HSS females are good to go at the age of sixteen. ( Another global norm with well neigh universal standing. It must be truly ancient. )

And, beards also identify the sexes from afar… so that when rival males acquired mates the hard way… they’d not shoot the ‘opportunity’ instead of the ‘complication.’

And, of course, having a grey beard, ( any grey ) would permit the male clout in tribal counsel. ( Lacking a grey beard it was always time to STFU. )

Such practices are witnessed/recorded wherever primitive societies have ever been encountered.

——–

The idea of hooking up two young mates started in the royal houses of Europe. The kids would be betrothed, over and over, depending on politics, until the knot was tied some time after she was of age. ( Bed ready )

——–

The above ought to be kept in mind by older guys on the hunt.

At every level, babes are entirely comfortable with marrying older men — MUCH OLDER MEN — so targeting your own age cohort is terrible strategy.

The only person REALLY concerned about baldness is the guy. The gals realize that their chances of marriage to a man able to KEEP a full head are virtually nil. Testosterone kills off hair. Meaning that no end of Alphas in their maturity are running around underneath high quality ‘rugs.’

I give you Trump: a product of modern vanity sculpture.

The phenomenal asset position held by a thirty-something guy can look VERY impressive to a twenty-something babe. The number one reason for divorce is that family finances blew up… like he lost his job.

——

Thirty-something cougars should be left to men old enough to be their sons or fathers. The youngsters will soon prove why they can’t / won’t ‘solve’ a cougar’s requirements. For nothing makes a woman feel older than being a transient screw — and being treated like the slut she’s become. And, of course, the conversations are skewed by life history.

When a cougar is 38, she’s had twenty-years of adulthood; a boy of 20’s had, at best, two-years of adulthood. It has an impact.

Whereas, with a man ten to twenty years her senior, there’s an identity of sexual crisis: it’s winding down for both of them. And his jaded tastes are best met by a woman who’s already been there and done that. And, let’s face it, 38 looks mighty young to a man who’s 61.

If she ever wanted a family — she’s w-a-a-a-y past her pull date. With any luck, she beats the odds.

The death of Western Civilization will come from adolescence extending BEYOND the child-bearing years.

I grew up but quick as a 17 y/o father married to a 16 y/o chick. It’s called a Southern Shotgun Wedding. Dumping the mom and raising the three boys from that “relationship” was the best thing I’ve done in my life. Those three smart-ass punks are going to be millionares and support me in my old age as payback.

“The White Man has lost control of his female, and therefore his race is doomed.”

I remember the looks I used to get from people (with a few exceptions- my male friends who “got it”- they knew how to handle women instinctively) when I said this, And yet, it sums up the situation beautifully.

Also- our women have abandoned us, as far as fighting for our race/civilization.

The best age at which to find a potential husband for an educated woman is between 24 and 28. It’s a bad idea to marry at a much younger age than one’s peers. Of course, postponing marriage beyond the age of 30 is not wise for a woman, either, for obvious biological reasons. Cohabiting with the same man through college and marrying him is likely to cause the woman to get bored by her busband while still having (or believing in having) real options on the market. The resulting marital instablity and divorce are poison for the entire family.

Whether or not a single young woman living her peak SMV years will ride the carousel or focus on something else altogether, depends a lot on her T-level and other biological and psychological factors. A few years of freedom between flying from the nest and settling down is what I recommend. However foolish it may be, yearning for freedom can be hard to rationally overcome.

At that point she’s ridden the cock carousel terribly.
How does she bring anything other than an entitled attitude, “deleterious to marriage” understanding of law (how to quickly summon the police), and a boatload of shrewish friends to the marriage?

I read the original article. I agree with you. But I would adopt a slightly more nuanced generalization having regard to the subjects of the study – politically liberal women and politically moderate women who study liberal arts want to ride the cock carousel and the more intelligent such women are, the more committed they are to riding the cock carousel, because it dovetails with their underlying political, social and feminist opinions – all of which exalt living in the moment and demean traditional morality, conservatism and the superior role of men.

When the group – admittedly not intra-group, but rather a comparison with men – was medical students, a different result emerged – as noted in the study itself.

In my view, these amazons have always been with us, but before effective birth control and the divorce industry, they could not fund their dominance habit.

One thing is clear – if you leave it too long to get married to a genuinely conservative woman (somewhere between 25% and 30% of women) (and I note that you have previously said that you never meet conservative women), then you do not want ever to get married to any of these whores and if you are fool enough to get married to one of them, then get a pre-nup and go for the dullard. But realize this – misery loves company and her “betters” will convince her she has “sold out” and needs to divorce you. Better to screw them and keep it mean and make sure that you get one who has a high income government job, so the child support payment is manageable, if you are fool enough not to have a vasectomy.

If she demands matrimony, tell her that she has to get tattoos on her butt and her crotch with your name on them in a number of inks including green – the hardest to remove (and you are not getting one) and she has to change her surname to yours, wear a wedding ring and persist in that name for 3 to 5 years before you will marry her.

Make sure that you put sperm on deposit before the vasectomy, so that if you retire overseas and meet a real lady you want children with, you can do it.

Oh, back in the day as a late-teen/early-twenty I sampled a cavalcade of world-class college-bound vagina: smart, rich SWPL chicks hungry for a ride in the backseat (or, hell, wherever!) before going away to college. 16-18 year olds ready to go at it 2, 3, 4 times a day/night? It doesn’t get much better than that.

When women are all earning a bunch of money, as this study shows, money loses its value (the same way when Brad Pitt, Clooney, and Matt Damon all hangout together they aren’t sitting there in awe of eachother’s fortunes or movie careers) and a man relying on money to attract women is left going “wait what? But I have a BMW!! I’m rich that’s a trigger!!!” while the girl says “cool. I have two BMWs. Yawn.” and then fucks the confident asshole.

She can’t earn the feelings a guy with game gives her. She can never obtain an abundance of that from another source. Confidence is the ultimate “attraction trigger”. If a woman could go to a “Gina tingle” vending machine and load up on a ton of that feeling, confident men would no longer be a big deal. But she can’t. Money, she can get a good career or go to any nightclub in a miniskirt or online dating site and have dozens of rich men chasing her. Looks, she can go to any nightclub in a miniskirt and be surrounded by guys with 6-packs and Armani suits chasing her. These things don’t have value to the really hot girls because they have access to an overabundance of them.

The average/ugly/poor/desperate girls don’t have that same overabundant access to those things do cigar-stache chick pays more attention when you have those things. But why are you picking up the bottom of the barrel? And even then, she’s not attracted to you, she just realizes you’re a good catch for her since she can’t get those things elsewhere so she’s classifying you as her provider beta male. Thus the fatty on online dating sites saying “I love my hubby but want some adventure on the side”

Looks follows the same concept as money.

If a woman is a 9 or 10 then she’s surrounded by hot 6-packed rich dudes buying her drinks all night and taking her on trips and expensive dinners and trying to get into her pants. That is her reality. Date one for a while and watch the amount of guys orbiting her at all times, it’s retarded. The average normal male can’t even comprehend what the world of a hot girl is like.

Because she has such an over-abundance of those things, they lose their value. Everyone has a 6-pack so who cares about 6-packs? She’s seen a dozen of them that night.

So who does she go home with? That’s where we go back to the early PUAs who were going out wearing crazy Mystery style peacocking outfits. That demonstrated the same level of confidence a peacocked girl has and the PUAs were so in their own reality and wouldn’t supplicate etc like the 6-pack guys, so the chick was attracted because while guys with 6-packs and money were abundant in her world, guys with confidence were not.

It wasn’t the PVC pants or eyeliner themselves that were an “attraction trigger” just as its not the money itself that’s a trigger, it was the confidence that wearing those things demonstrated since anyone peacocked takes a ton of shit-tests on and a guy who can handle social pressure and shit-tests is confident in himself. That’s why if an AMOG made fun of Mystery’s black nails he wouldn’t go “hey fuck you asshole” (insecure, no confidence), he’d go “sorry man these nails are black not pink, gay bar is up the street” (secure, confident)

This is a very important concept of internal game. Guys who don’t understand it haven’t picked up the peacocked turbo girls at clubs, haven’t dated or spent a lot of time around legit society-standards 10s (if your girl doesn’t have guys blowing up her phone daily offering to take her to expensive dinners and buy her shit and fly her to other countries she’s not a 10 even if you think she’s hot), and haven’t been around enough variety in social circles (in both looks and finances). Once you have done that stuff, this is all very clear and observable behavior.

It’s been said since before The Game was published: game was DESIGNED for the hottest girls. The hotter and smarter they are, the more powerful game is on them.

If you are too lazy or don’t have the time or inclination to start a blog with fresh content, you should at least start one where you cut-n-paste all your comments from here. It would be great to find all this in one place without having to wade through a sea of mediocrity.

[heartiste: yes, yareally is a quality game commenter. i’d put him in the same league as rollo. it’s funny, the names of top tier commenters may change and they may come and go, but their representation in the general commenting community does not change. top notch commenters still, in my view, hover around 10-20% of total commentage. this is probably true for most non-mainstream blogs. the only way to raise this percentage is through strict moderation and pruning, or broadening the blog’s subject matter to draw in quality commenters from different communities. but then some of the fun would be sucked out of the rapport that trolls and doofuses inspire.]

The edge comes from spending most of one’s time out there in the field and quickly adding something to this ongoing conversation.

Besides saving time, the reason why a good commenter may not choose to run his own blog is that this one gets about 4500 unique viewers per day, something that has taken CH 5 years of steady and quality posting to arrive at.

So a well-written essay in the comments section here will be anywhere from 100 times to 1000 times more effective than trying to publish something on your own blog. A regular here can see some of his own words influence even some articles that later appear in the main stream media or something that appears in a film two or three years hence.

On top of that, CH himself soaks up concepts and experiences expressed by commenters and evolves with that. That makes this place a lot more intellectually satisfying than the blog or radio show of someone like Rush Limbaugh or whoever who is never going to evolve. This is more of an interactive community than most, there is little chance of CH getting paid by special interests to change his tune and all that makes this scene potentially quite powerful in terms of the evolution of anglo culture and politics.

I don’t do a blog cause all I’m doing is rehashing PUA community concepts. All this knowledge is already out there so it’s not my own material. Plus I have other shit to do, I do most of my posts on my phone while I’m shitting (like this one lol)

A lot of what I write is new or a new perspective to the manosphere blog audience because this culture isn’t as in-depth as PUAs so on my end I basically see a blog post that touches the main element of a concept we’ve already studied and explains the surface enough for most guys to get the basic idea which is all manosphere readers tend to want (nothing wrong with that, I like to watch the movie of something rather than read the book)…then I come in and expand on that concept and try to link it to other ideas I’ve seen in these blogs that I know you guys will understand.

In my mind you guys are all running way ahead of the average male, but way behind PUAs, in terms of breaking down social dynamics and attraction and all that. But to just improve your dating life you don’t NEED to understand shit as in-depth as the PUA community, it’s overkill. I study it deep because it’s a skillset I want to eventually master, but really my dating life was just fine a couple years into learning game lol

I think these blogs reach a wider more casual audience than PUA does because of the simplified concepts/maxims but for modern men as a whole I view that as a good thing. The more men who start to realize they’re even IN the Matrix of bullshit social conditioning the better, even if they arent interested in taking it to a level where theyre fighting off a thousand Agent Smiths with one hand.

My first comment on this blog was clarifying a PUA opener that was confusing to this audience. All I’m really interested in is bridging the gap between your guys’ knowledge and ours. If someone wants to archive my comments somewhere for reference, feel free to but I think the article they’re in response to is an important context for them to make sense.

As a study that uses personal admissions to reach conclusions, this study fails to take impulsivity, a major influence on human action, into account. A better gauge of who’s the most promiscuous would be actually asking the women how many sexual partners they actually have had (barring the reasonable objection that, on average, one group could be less honest about it).

Also, in leftist upper middle class society, a nearly neurotic level of anti-confrontational, non-judgmental outlooks prevail. I think, on some level, the women who answered that they’d be willing to take up a short-term sexual relationship took into account the moral nihilism that pervades pretentious liberal thought. And, as we all know, self-reported information about women’s preferences is quite unreliable.

[heartiste: a big problem with all sex related studies is self-reporting. the incentive to lie, particularly by women, is too great to accurately gauge sexual habits and behaviors. i don’t know how an experimental problem like this is overcome, except to say that if a study’s conclusions veer too wildly from what i observe with my two eyes in the field, then i automatically suspect the study is flawed in some major way. and that usually turns out to be the case. (only infrequently do scientific conclusions upend my personal observations.)
truly accurate assessments of female sexual behavior are going to have to rely on some combination of self-reporting + third party observation + lifetime cohort tracking. i’d throw in video cameras and plesthmographs as well.]

You are saying college girls are sluts? You don’t say? Grim truth folks… college girls are often whoring themselves out to rich betas and lazy/time constrained alphas. In Dallas, NYC, florida gold coast, LA., prostitution is a rite of passage for young women (as it was in Babylon).This blog is so 1995 (chasing indie singers? you mean like Pearl Jam?).

[heartiste: just last week, i met a girl who had banged the lead singer/DJ/whatever for a local dubstep band. she was very proud of it.]

No, gentleman, the hour is much later and darker than you suspect.

[i hear reports from the field that quasi-prostitution is on the rise.]

^ Heartiste, right again.http://www.havocscope.com/students-working-in-germanys-prostitution-industry/
“30 percent of students who work in Germany’s legal prostitution industry were carrying student loan debt at the time of the survey.”
Heh heh, in the end, a man with money can get his honey.
And for cheap too.
“Educated” (useless degree) women, will be fuelling this trend.
Empowered sexuality, on their terms indeed.

[heartiste: …as it is, because of all this contradicting data, i now want to see the underlying hard data for this study. GSS self-reports don’t cut it anymore. the science of sluttiness has to be better than that to account for the powerful human tendency to lie on the subject of sexual habits.]

Women lie when it comes to sexual history (and probably by extension, most other areas of her life):

“Women who thought their responses might be read said they had had an average of 2.6 sexual partners, compared with 3.4 partners for those who thought their answers were anonymous. But those who thought they would be caught out by the polygraph reported an average of 4.4 partners.”

Note: this refers only to “unmarried, heterosexual college students aged 18 to 25.” The author of the article notes that “…British men boast an average of 13 partners over a lifetime compared with an average of nine partners for women.” I suspect it is not all that different in North America.

Basically, what this means is that by age 20, the average woman has had 4+ partners and will probably have 13 in her lifetime.

Pretty slutty. Keep this in mind when you are out there looking for a ‘good’ woman. they are nearly extinct in the Western world.

A look inside the mind of a young female college student, who compiled a PowerPoint Fuck List of 13 guys she fucked during college. Proves everything this blog preaches. A must-read for you, and would make for a good blog post.

“Women who thought their responses might be read said they had had an average of 2.6 sexual partners, compared with 3.4 partners for those who thought their answers were anonymous. But those who thought they would be caught out by the polygraph reported an average of 4.4 partners.”

So the number of reported partners drops by half depending on circumstances.

That’s only penis in vagina sex, while sober. “It doesn’t count if I’m drunk!” Even so, multiply a woman’s reported number of partners by 3 to get the actual number of men who’ve penetrated her vag.

Meanwhile, by Presidential Order from the Commander-in-Creep, Ol’ Slick Willie himself, oral sex means he can say “I did not have sex with that woman.” So if you want the number of men she’s gotten off by hand, mouth, anus, foot, etc., multiply her number by 10.

A lot of posters keep pointing to the fact that marriage levels have fallen further among lower socio-economic groups. But that is partly because the welfare state has replaced the role of husbands further down the economic ladder. It is also because men in lower socio-economic groups have been hit harder by the loss of blue collar jobs and feminist social engineering designed to favor females in education, employment etc. Moreover, marriage levels have fallen over the decades among higher socio-economic groups. They just have not fallen as much.

This is all broadly consistent with the general theme that female hypergamy and increased economic empowerment are undermining relationships and family formation.

Fertile women: Alpha hunters at large. They imitate men in promiscuity as far as they can get, without thinking the toll it will have later.

Non-fertile women: Beta hunters at large for marriage (but if an alpha crosses their path, it takes no more than 10s for their panties to drop). Pretend to be pure and honest.

For beta men the second type are the most dangerous. Marrying with alpha’s leftovers is unacceptable. Best thing to do is to be as liberal about sex as possible, so she will tell her sexual encounters freely, so the man can decide the better course of action.

So, both women are susceptible to Alpha.
Get them while they’re young then.
Why risk a life with the “respectable” slut, who’s sure to ra3p you of all your holdings, and possibly ruin your reputation as well?

Why on earth would a man marry a non-fertile woman? A woman who can’t give me children is not someone I would consider for marriage. It’s easy enough to just date long-term and avoid her getting her hooks into you legally and financially.

It’s funny how paternalistic conservatives will sometimes cite this as being entirely due to women being more susceptible to STDs, rather than being a result of increased female sluttiness (proof, they say, of how much the sexual revolution has harmed women and benefitted men. Poor darlings!)

I always find it highly amusing to see just what lengths of rationalizations some people will go to in order to sustain their view of women as innocent victims.

(kristen bell’s character is a management consultant who is engaged to a beta schlub, and the guy she’s fucking here is some musician she just met while away on a business trip)

not shown in the clip, but a little later, they’re lying in bed and wind up talking about her rich fiance. when the musician makes a comment about her infidelity, she says ‘i don’t cheat on him. you….this….tonight….and your penis and your mediocre weed, they don’t have anything to do with my real life’.

I dunno, management by people not the founders of a company, often if not always happens to be some talentless liar getting ahead – who knows whether he’s marrying her simply to be seen as more respectable in the corporate gathering’s eyes? If he can tolerate her behaviour … he’ll get more of it.

The musician had game. It strikes me every now and then, especially in the TV series, that the scenarists have read The Game or some game literature, and instill it in their shows in homeopathic doses in order not to shock anyone.

I don’t watch a lot of TV but the last time it was on the big bang theory when one of the weirdo omegas tried to take the lead with some cocky funny stuff, and his blonde slut of a roomate said she loves it.

Other than that, marrying careerist chicks is asking for cuckoldry. Every single chick that I know who loves her career also happens to be a whore. These bitches have masculine brains. I don’t even feel sorry for the beta schlubs who get the sloppy seconds of their own wives. You went against your masculine self and chose an empowered woman, that’s what you get.

As far back as 1971, studies have show that behavioral impulsivity is negatively correlated wiht intelegence in men, and positively correlated in women. In other words, smart men tend to be less impulsive, but smart women tend to be more impulsive.

Which is why Game works well even on smart women. It’s an invitation for them to act impulsively. Even when they recognize Game, they sometimes see it as an opportunity to act impulsivley.

In 2008 a french study on impulse buying found ” that compulsive buying is positively correlated with three facets of impulsivity (urgency, lack of perseverance and lack of premeditation)” or more simply, women act more impulsivly if they have to choose quickly, if they know they won’t get another chance, and they haven’t had time to think about it before the point of decision is reached.

The premeditation part has me a little curious though. Do you find Game works better on women that are actively looking for a hook up, or on women that are just out having fun and not expecting anything to happen, or equally as well on both?

A poor girl wants to marry, And a rich girl wants to flirt.
A rich man goes to college,And a poor man goes to work.
A drunkard wants another drink of wine,And a politician wants a vote.
I don’t want much of nothin’ at all,But I will take another toke.

‘Cos I ain’t askin’ nobody for nothin’,If I can’t get it on my own.
If you don’t like the way I’m livin’,
You just leave this long-haired country boy alone.

I just returned from a Caribbean Cruise. I met a stunning blond Belorussian bar tender in the cigar bar on-ship. I asked her what her goals in life were. She said it was to get married and have babies. I told her that is exactly what she should do. Her fiancee was the principal male skater in the ship’s ice skate show—a Russian. I didn’t tell her that he will probably cheat on her, but he will. He’s an alpha and he will have options. Sooner of later he will take them. She will be better off anyway, because it’s better for a woman to be surrounded by children and grandchildren than cats. Eastern women are more normal than western ones.

yes, yareally is a quality game commenter. i’d put him in the same league as rollo.

Yareally has some good experience and insight to share, but his theory is broken where he reduces all attraction down to nothing other than confidence, and where he refuses to acknowledge that anything other than confidence is also attractive. That you agree with him on this point is a major weakness in your theory, H.

You can keep repeating this but you will keep being wrong and I will keep attributing it to your lack of varied experience and inability to remove your blindspots and biases and analyze the world thru an unfiltered lens.

I don’t care about anything except what works. If money made a difference I would go get some.

You are still not boiling your beliefs down to their core. Its like if I asked you what was in Pepsi you’d say “Pepsi!” instead of listing off the chemicals used.

A chick on the weekend (22-26ish marketing exec chick (whoops just realized we haven’t asked eachother our ages) she was sober, babysitting her drunk friend) I literally took to a McDonalds the next day. Wearing the same clothes I had on the night before. Because I slept on a friend’s couch (he’s a natural who hasn’t had a job in like 2 years, he tapped his official 100th girl on thursday then 2 more by Monday, one of them was the first girl’s friend). She paid for our McDs. She doesn’t know what I do for a living and she has to come to my place because I don’t have a car, and she’s bringing wine for us lol I’ve already sexted her to orgasm so it’s a done deal. Hell I would’ve just fucked her in McDonald but she was a shy innocent girl who wouldn’t let me do any kino. I went back to my buddys place and he laughed at me because I was like “I can’t believe I wasted a whole hour at McDonald’s and we didn’t even fuck in the bathroom. Going on dates is retarded” and meant it lol from the sexting I know what she’s into now and I established the fuckbuddy frame and all that so no more gay dates needed. She’s just coming over to bang as soon as she steps thru the door.

Do you think if I was rich she’d have gone “i know im shy around guys but you have an armani suit let’s go fuck in the McDonald’s bathroom!”? No. I spent 20 min flirting at the bar, an hour on our McDonald’s date, and a few hours sexting and it’s done, the second she’s at my door I’ll just pin her against the wall and escalate.. It doesn’t get much more efficient than that with this personality type. If she wasn’t shy I could’ve gotten her sooner. Confidence is king, girls don’t give a shit what’s in your wallet. Money does not make their pussy wet or they’d stay at home rubbing dollar pills on their clit.

And my buddies and I will do this all again and again and again while you sit there covering your ears re-enforcing your limiting beliefs.

The Poles used a similar method in the runup to WWII,
where people suspected of being German spies
where told to say “In (the village of) Schbyshinye [sp?],
the bumblebee is buzzing in the reeds”. In Polish,
this contains a nest of fricatives, nasalizations and
other tricky stuff, impossible if you didn’t grow up
in Poland.

A: OK, guys, it’s really simple. A man comes home to his house unexpectedly early, and finds is wife getting it on. He pretends not to notice.

B: Noh, noh noh. You are close my friend, but you don’t quite make
it all the way. The husband, as you say, finds his wife in delicto flagrante,
But instead of pretending, he says “Never mind me. Please continue”.
That, my friends is savoir-faire.

F: Oh, my dear ami, you are so close and yet so faahr away. All as you said,
up to the “please continu” AND IN SUCH A WAY THAT THEY DO!.
That, mes chers amis, that is REAL savoir-faire!

Girls everywhere and all you emasculated “men” who are trying so hard to be politically correct at the expense of your masculinity, listen up.

Men and women are equals. This does not mean that they are equal in every single thing they do. For example, men are, on average, physically stronger than women. It is much easier for a semi attractive (even a 6/10) woman to go out and get laid. The same cannot be said about men. Men have to work at it, have some skill (game) and thereby get a woman to sleep with them. It is a LOT harder for an equally attractive man to get women than it is the other way around. This is one of reasons behind why we, as a society, naturally celebrate men who are successful in bedding multiple women; while at the same time shame women who bed multiple men.

Let us briefly visit the topic of virginity from both perspectives. Virginity in a man is not a desirable state or label when it comes to an attribute that the opposite sex wants. This is because he has obviously not been preselected by other women. However, female virginity is not looked at negatively in the least by men. If she looks decent, no man cares if the girl is a virgin or not. In fact, a female virgin is often wanted more.

Now don’t get me wrong, men LOVE sluts. We will never turn down an opportunity to sleep with a good looking slut. Partly because she’s good in bed, partly because it’s sex. But any decently intelligent, self-respecting man will know that it is a terrible idea to emotionally involve himself (i.e. date) a slutty girl. That would be a very dumb move. Why would any man want to get emotionally involved with a girl who’s had 15+ sexual partners? We would just be setting ourselves up for failure. There are many nice worthy girls out there who don’t have daddy issues and haven’t slept with an entire fraternity house. But, by all means, fvck the brains out of sluts in the meanwhile.

Most guys can detect when a girl is a slut by the first few dates and by what he hears about the girl from other people and from the girl herlself. We put this information together and figure out if she is dating material or not. If not, I like most guys, will still go in for the prize but have no intention of following through with dating the dirty little tart.

To put it simply, a lock that can be opened by many keys is a useless lock and of little worth. But a key that can open many locks is a master key and is valuable.